Call for General Election

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his eloquent introduction of this important topic. Over a million people have signed the petition, and 4,929 of them are constituents of mine in Didcot and Wantage in Oxfordshire. I want to start by summarising some of the reasons they gave for asking for a general election and, indeed, this debate when they wrote to me.

Some people feel that the Government’s impact on small businesses and economic growth is too much to bear—for example, a small business owner who is considering having to close his business as a consequence. For other people, it is more about international matters, including concerns about the Government’s approach to the Gaza situation. Others felt that working-class people have been disregarded and betrayed by the Government, given what was promised before the general election. For other people, there was an overriding feeling of dissatisfaction and general incompetence. Some people, particularly those who send their children with special educational needs to private institutions, were concerned about the impact of VAT on school fees.

Although I am no fan of the Government and agree with some of those criticisms, I am afraid I must politely disagree with my constituents, because I do not think we should have a general election, for three reasons. First, there are no straightforward criteria for assessing when it is time for a Government’s time in office to end early, because under our first-past-the-post system a Government almost never earns more than 50% of support in the first place. We could end up with an endless revolving door of elections and brand-new Government chaos. The period in the late 2010s, when we saw frequent general elections, did not lead to a general increase in satisfaction with the political system, or to a feeling that the economic or general outcomes for the country had improved.

To be fair, Governments deserve time to learn the ropes and get things right, albeit this Government have not necessarily used their time so far very well. But we must hear and understand the underlying reasons that have led to the petition and the call for a general election. There are lots of things that we need to change about our politics, which we need to make relevant and responsive again. Notwithstanding the very good opening remarks by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, I am afraid the exchange we heard during the previous speech perhaps shows what is wrong with our politics at the moment and why it puts people off: relitigating the arguments of 10 or 15 years ago, with a lot of “he said”, “she said” or “they said” between representatives of the two main parties, which between them have been running our country for the overwhelming majority of the last 100 years or more.

Instead, I offer some better ways to address the discontent and boost engagement with politics. At the risk of sounding naive and full of optimism about the future—my Liberal Democrat colleagues know I never do that, as I am yet to understand the philosophical or intellectual basis of optimism, but I will put that to one side—what we really need in our politics is more listening to each other and more sharing of political ideas, not just as parties but as 650 people who all have different backgrounds, and who bring those different backgrounds and life experiences to this place. We need to do that to achieve better representation for our constituents, because none of us individually can hope to represent directly, or have the lived experience of, all of our tens of thousands of constituents. That would be impossible. We can only listen to them, learn from them and reflect on that.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive comments about the need to change the political culture inside this place, but there is also a need to change it right across the country, including in our councils and devolved Governments. Does he agree that working to roll out proportional representation across all our electoral systems would change the culture both in the country and in this place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairship, Sir Edward. Let us be honest: if this petition was likely to trigger a general election, I doubt very much whether some of my former colleagues would be in the room today, because many of them would lose their seats—[Interruption.] We all make mistakes, and when we do we should hold our hands up and say sorry.

Wherever I go in this country, and I travel a lot round this country every week, people say to me that they are sorry—sorry for voting Labour at the last general election—and that they will never vote Labour again. They wish they could turn the clock back and vote for a different party, normally Reform UK.

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman talks about being sorry. Many people across the country voted Reform in local council elections on the basis that there would be either no increase in or perhaps even a cut in council tax. Now they face with rises at the very limit of what is legally possible. Is he sorry for that?

[Lee Anderson]

I will just correct the hon. Gentleman slightly. Nowhere in our national literature did anybody promise to cut council tax anywhere in the country. He may want to correct himself on that.

Anyway, I get people apologising for voting Labour. Sometimes the odd lunatic might say they are going to vote for the Green party—they are usually recaptured very quickly. But there is a glimmer of hope, because at the next general election, this lot over here, on the Labour Benches, will all be looking for jobs. Of course most of them are absolutely unemployable now, unless they fancy a job as a bailiff, because, let’s face it, all they have done over the past 18 months is go into people’s houses and take stuff off them—usually money from people’s pockets. It is absolutely disgraceful. They can shake their heads or grin if they want, but they will not be forgiven—mark my words.

Just imagine when Labour Members are down at the jobcentre in a couple of years’ time for their next job interview. The adviser says, “What have you been doing for the past couple of years?” Well, I can sum up their achievements already. For the past few years, they worked for an awful dictator. Under his leadership, illegal migration is totally out of control. Our streets are filling up with criminals; in Birmingham, they are filling up with rubbish as well—there are rats the size of small dogs roaming around Birmingham, feasting on tons of rubbish. They have closed pubs and restaurants. They have put 100,000 people in the hospitality industry on the dole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

I think X has to clean its act up—that is simple, and I think we all agree with that. It is interesting that all these Labour MPs complain about X, yet they are all on X every day making silly comments—you could not make it up, Sir Edward. If they had any scruples or backbone they would all come off X, but I suspect that not one of them will; they will carry on.

[Dr Arthur]

How much money did the hon. Gentleman make from X last year?

[Lee Anderson]

I am not quite sure. I make about 400 quid a month from being on X. That is not exactly the “gotcha” answer the hon. Gentleman expected to that question, but I make no bones about it: I make money from X, and I pay about 45% tax on the money I make, which goes to the Treasury.

Let us not forget another flagship scheme of the Labour party: building brand-new social housing for illegal migrants who come over the channel. Meanwhile, we have a million Brits stuck on the council house waiting list. Yet anybody who calls that out—anybody who disagrees with that lot over there on the Labour Benches—is labelled a far-right racist.

It would be fair to say that every family in this country has been affected by this Labour Government, but not in a good way. We have all had enough of it. We are fed up to the back teeth of them. Let us discuss the Cabinet, starting with the Prime Minister, whose first instinct is to prioritise foreign judges over British people. We have an Attorney General who agrees with the European Court of Human Rights when it blocks foreign rapists and murderers from being deported. We have a Chancellor who does not understand the first thing about economic growth. We have an Energy Secretary who is killing our manufacturing sector with his net zero madness. We have an Education Secretary who says nothing about the radicalisation of our children by left-wing teachers.

We have a Justice Secretary who once said that Brexiteers were worse than Nazis. Mind you, Sir Edward, that is not the daftest thing he has said; just go on YouTube and have a look at his contributions on “Mastermind”—hilarious. We have a Foreign Secretary who is giving away British sovereign territory and making us pay billions of pounds for the privilege. We have a Health Secretary who is ploughing ahead with giving children life-destroying hormone blockers. Worst of all, as a result of this Government we have radical Islamists, former Labour voters—and some politicians—waiting in the wings ready to stand for Parliament at the next election in once-safe Labour seats. Most of the Labour MPs in this Chamber are going to go—they will be on the dole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

We have seen it at a national level, and the very same strategy was rolled out across Labour-run Bradford council, where a Conservative group motion was put before the council, urging it to vote for a national inquiry. What did the Labour councillors on Labour-run Bradford council do? They voted against that motion. This gets to the nub of the issue, because it should not be about politics; it should be about the difference between right and wrong. That, I feel, is why so many people have signed the petition. Yet again, this Labour Government—Home Secretary after Home Secretary—have been dragged to the Dispatch Box to carry out a further U-turn.

[Dr Arthur]

It is great to hear what is happening with Conservative council groups across the country in relation to the rape gang inquiry. What did the Conservative Government do over the last 14 years?

[Robbie Moore]

The grooming gangs taskforce was rolled out. As an individual, I have been clear; the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse under Theresa May, the Home Secretary at the time, provided a huge number of recommendations, and I have always advocated that they be put into force. But let us look at the timing. The 14 recommendations in the IICSA report—a very detailed report by Professor Alexis Jay—came out in 2022, and an equivalent amount of time has passed since the general election, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) why it is that this Labour Government have not implemented in full even one of those recommendations. That is shameful.

There have been further U-turns. The winter fuel allowance has changed. Our pensioners have been hugely negatively impacted by this Labour Government, and we can go on to the two-child benefit cap change and income tax. Labour MPs will say, “Those with the broadest shoulders need to bear the brunt of these choices”—like the Chagos deal, which cost something like £47 million, or the roll-out of digital ID at £1.8 million. But who is paying these bills? Basic rate income tax payers will see their income tax go up by £220 this year. They are not the individuals with the broadest shoulders, but it is these hard-working people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth Valley who will pay for the disastrous decisions that the Government have made in the last 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This Labour Government came to office on the back of so many promises, and more than a million people have signed this petition because so many of those promises have been broken.

Labour promised our farmers that it would protect British agriculture, but it slammed them with the family farm tax, threatening food prices, threatening food security and causing misery for families who have farmed for generations. Labour said that it wanted to help Britain’s high streets and small businesses, but it battered them with the jobs tax, hiking up business rates and slashing reliefs.

Pensioners were promised security and support, but they had their winter fuel allowance ripped from their hands and were forced to sit in the cold and make the decision between heating and eating. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300, yet the average family is now paying almost £200 more.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

Labour promised us more police officers and police community support officers on our streets. Instead, we have seen cuts to police numbers and prisoners released early. We are now looking at an end to jury trials, and police chiefs are telling us about a funding shortfall of half a billion pounds.

Labour promised to end the use of asylum hotels, but the number of such hotels has risen and the number of those arriving illegally in the country has gone up, not just by a bit, but by 50%. Of those who have arrived illegally, fewer are now being deported.

The Prime Minister promised every council tax payer in the land “not a penny more” on council tax, yet council tax is on the up. In fact, taxes are on the up left, right and centre, and have reached a record high. Under this Government, those who work are paying more and more in tax and those who do not are getting more and more in benefits.

[Dr Arthur]

When the hon. Gentleman refers to people who are not in work getting more and more from the state, is he talking about our increase to the state pension?

[Matt Vickers]

We are talking about the end of the two-child cap and the ever-increasing amount spent on benefits in this country, while hard-working people—the guys who get up early and go out and graft all day—are paying more and more in tax. It is simply not fair.

Then there is the one thing in particular—it is one of many, actually—that did not feature at all in the Labour party manifesto but looks set to be imposed: digital ID. We do not want it, we do not need it and nobody voted for it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state, and this Government have no mandate to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, although he was a little “glass half-empty” when assessing the Government’s record.

One of the challenges facing the Government is that, when it comes to borrowing, our bond rate remains high because of the calamitous Budget set by Liz Truss. It showed the world that we were capable of making horrendously bad decisions, which also impacts on our ability to attract investment to the UK. Although I support the idea of a recall petition for MPs, a recall petition for whole Governments would just further weaken confidence in us as a country.

I do understand the sentiment of the people who signed the petition, and particularly the people from Edinburgh South West. Many would have started their first job, or perhaps got married, around the 2008 financial crisis, and that would have impacted their ability to move on in life. Some would have felt the impact of Brexit, which has been a huge financial disruptor in the UK, and again that would have affected their life chances. Both those things are once-in-a-generation events, but right in the middle of them, we had a once-in-a-century event—the covid pandemic. So a lot of people in the UK right now have not had a fair chance to get on in life, and that leaves them feeling frustrated.

Then, along come parties that are keen to sow division. They do not offer answers; all they do is amplify that feeling of mistrust and of being left behind. We heard that from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who gave us a long list of things he thinks are wrong with the country, but not a single solution other than misleading leaflets. That is something I talked about when I was touring schools in my constituency as part of Parliament Week last year. Children in modern studies and politics classes asked why politics is so divisive in the UK.

[Lee Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman is most generous with his time. He talked about divisiveness in politics, and he said that schoolchildren are picking up on that. At Quarrydale academy in Ashfield, a year 9 history class was being taught polities. There was a chart on the wall; on one side, it said, “far-right” and “Nazis”, next to pictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), myself, Oswald Mosley and Mussolini. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is the right way to teach our children?

[Dr Arthur]

This is a serious point. I would hope that teachers are not teaching children that. Although I disagree with the hon. Member’s politics, I do not rank it alongside that of the far-right politicians he has mentioned from history. Of course, if this was part of a school assignment, I am sure he would be the first to talk about freedom of speech; children have that right as well. However, I hope that those things are not being taught in schools; in fact, I am sure they are not.

In the schools that I went to, one thing that came up was LGBT rights. Some students were absolutely disgusted by some of the comments from Reform, which were echoed earlier in the debate in relation to access to healthcare for people who are part of the trans community. Students are absolutely disgusted by what is happening because they care; they have friends who face this issue, and they care about it passionately. I urge the hon. Member to represent everyone when he makes his comments.

In the classrooms, I was challenged on what I thought the Government’s greatest achievement was. I am an emotional person, and the thing that got me most emotional was voting for better employment rights for women and making it harder for employers to sack women just because they were pregnant, had had a miscarriage or were returning from having a baby. I think that is something we would all support; I know some Members might have voted against it, but I am sure we all think these are good things.

Likewise, I said I was proud of the work the Government were doing to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. I said that knowing that some of the children in that very classroom would benefit from that policy and that other children in the classroom would maybe know who those children were. I am really proud of what the Government are doing in that space.

[John Lamont]

As the hon. Member will know, there is wide speculation in the Scottish press about a plot among Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. Labour MPs are quoted as describing the Prime Minister as “terrible”, “incompetent”, “mind-blowingly stupid”, and saying they are going to get “slaughtered” in the Scottish Parliament elections. Is the hon. Member part of that plot?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely not. Those are not comments I am familiar with at all. I would advise the hon. Member not to focus on newspapers’ speculation and to focus on supporting his constituents.

I talked to the young people in school about how the Government take our international treaties on both the climate and human rights seriously, and they value that. I also talked about the plans to extend the voting age for general elections in Scotland to 16. Young voters can already vote at 16 in other elections in Scotland.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the hon. Member moves on, does he recognise the level of frustration there is with the Employment Rights Act 2025? My inbox has been filled with a lot of emails and correspondence from lobby organisations representing those with disabilities and special educational needs. They are frustrated that the Act will make it much more difficult for an employer to take a risk on giving an opportunity to someone with additional challenges or needs, so that there will be much less opportunity for them. Is he proud that the Government are aiming to do that with the Employment Rights Act and are not recognising those challenges?

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member knows that that is not the intention of the Government. He is welcome to visit my constituency, where I can help him meet lots of people who already support those with additional needs into work. They are doing fantastic work. I am sure that whatever the Government do will build on that success.

I am proud that the Government have learned from Edinburgh and introduced a pavement parking ban last week that will give councils across England the powers to introduce one. Again, that is a great step in creating a more equal UK. I am also really happy with the road safety strategy, which will save thousands of lives.

In Scotland, as we have already heard, we have had our biggest ever settlement. It is still a bit of a mystery to me how the Scottish Government spent that money. One of the biggest challenges we face in Edinburgh South West—this will have been part of the frustration that led people to sign the petition—is the housing crisis. I was really disappointed that last week the Scottish Government voted to tax house building in the middle of a housing emergency. That is the kind of Government we face in Scotland. We could talk about the UK Government, but people should look at the Scottish Government before doing so.

And I am really proud of what my office has done in the past year. It has resolved 8,000 cases and accumulated £303,000 of financial gain for constituents, mostly due to my colleague Lucie in my office. We also had a big impact on the Budget. Our lobbying brought about changes to inheritance tax and infected blood payments, and also brought reform to the Pension Protection Fund, ensuring that there was some indexation of the payments.

However, cutting across everything that happens in my constituency, there is still the cost of living crisis. There is also the growing youth employment that we have, particularly in Scotland—a point raised repeatedly by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. Immigration is also a real issue. People feel that the previous Government lost control of immigration—I think we can accept that—and that the current Government must do more to bring it back under control. I say that as someone whose life was saved by an immigrant back in 2015, and who also worked at a university. So I understand the benefits of immigration, but we have to get it to a place where it is supporting the country as a whole, and I think there are some questions about that.

To conclude, we have used the word “betrayal” quite a lot in the debate, and I really regret that, because it has often been used to deliberately amplify division in the country and among people listening to the debate. As a Parliament, we have a duty to talk much more about where we agree. I am sure we agree with the point raised earlier about improving employment rights for pregnant women, women returning from childbirth and women who have had miscarriages. I hope that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we can spend more time talking about what we have in common and engaging with the electorate on that. Then, we will perhaps be able to focus on delivery rather than petitions.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Could you clarify whether it is in order for so many Government speakers in the debate to have left the Chamber before the Front-Bench speeches to listen to their beleaguered Prime Minister at the parliamentary Labour party meeting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was, absolutely.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition. With 1 million signatories—including 2,040 people from my constituency of Thirsk and Malton—this is the eighth most-signed petition in history. This is such an important debate. The petition states that this country wants and needs “an immediate general election”.

I am the first to admit, having been in government myself, that governing is not easy; it is a difficult business. But one or two Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), said that this petition was somehow about us sowing division. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that there was somehow a Conservative plot to bring this petition to a debate. As a number of hon. Members have said, there are real people out there very concerned about what they see as betrayal and about how much they have been let down. They are angry. Dismissing their concerns on the basis that there is some kind of political plot is a big mistake. It was also a mistake for the Government to respond, as they did to this petition on 11 August 2025, by saying that they are

“fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain and restoring…confidence”.

This Government are not listening and do not understand what the people are saying to them.

[Dr Arthur]

I think I am being slightly misrepresented, or perhaps I was unclear. I perfectly understand why people signed the petition. I explained that a lot of people feel left behind by the way the economy has evolved over the last 20 years. People are frustrated, and that frustration has been harvested by parties that offer no solutions to the problems. That is perhaps the point I was making; sincere apologies if I was not clear.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I welcome the hon. Member’s explanation. I appreciate it; he seems like a very decent Member. It is very important that we listen to the public. There are some genuine concerns about what the Government set out to do, and about what they are actually doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq.

One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is. There is growth in inflation and in unemployment—including youth unemployment, which is rising significantly, with 5.2% of the working-age population unemployed compared with 4.2% when this Government took over. Taxes are also growing, to the tune of £60-odd billion a year. That is against the backdrop of the promises made about a fully costed, fully funded manifesto. No wonder people are angry. Debt and borrowing are up—on interest alone, gilt yields are higher than ever, at 5.72%. We pay £116 billion every year purely in debt interest. Small boat numbers are up 13%, year on year.

The cost of living is one of the greatest concerns of my and no doubt all hon. Members’ constituents. Against the backdrop of a promise to cut electricity prices by £300 a year, the average household now pays £190 more.

[Dr Arthur]

It is important to reflect that because of Liz Truss’s Budget, gilt rates are still higher in the UK than they would otherwise be. But gilt rates are rising right around the world—the hon. Member must accept that. While they are higher in the UK, they are high right around the world. Does he accept that every developed country faces that challenge? They are higher in this country because of Liz Truss as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That last point is complete nonsense. I was going to agree with the hon. Member that generally Government borrowing is higher because of where interest rates are. The most important thing we can do is get inflation under control to reduce the cost of debt. But the reality is that our margin above the rest of the world is higher than it has been for years; I am sure the hon. Member will not dispute that fact.

How do we get growth? We do not go about it the way Members on the Government Benches are talking about. I listened to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who made a good speech about the priorities of his constituents and what he is doing. But, as with a number of other Members, when it came to achieving growth all he talked about was long-term spending and infrastructure—I am not saying that is not important—or certain allocations of cash from the Government to those areas. What Government Members are not talking about is where growth is really driven from: small businesses. Governments do not create jobs— not sustainably. The only thing that creates growth and increases the number of jobs in our economy is small businesses. That point has been notably absent from the comments of Government Members.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am trying hard to visualise him playing basketball at Hackney college this morning. Perhaps photographs are available to confirm that it actually happened—apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Some 73% of university-age young people voted against Brexit—they voted to remain in the EU—so Erasmus always felt like a spiteful act, and I am really pleased that we are able to correct that injustice today. I worked in the university sector for almost 30 years before being elected to this place—hard to believe, I know—so I understand the benefits of Erasmus, but I do agree with the Minister that it was not a completely democratic process, and that it was middle-class students who tended to take part. How will he ensure that that changes? Will there be monitoring, perhaps, or will he consider targets?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

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

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

I thank the Minister for his responses. Throughout this affair, he has remained calm and consistent in answering points that—let’s be honest—have at times been smears from the Conservatives. I think the report from the Joint Committee has found them out, and that is why their Benches are empty today. Rather than hiding, the Conservatives should be here apologising.

Does the Minister welcome the fact that the report makes it clear that the root cause of the case collapsing was the dither and delay from the previous Government? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that that was nothing short of a dereliction of duty when it comes to our national security?

Nolan Principles

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address his point later in my speech.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that

“standards regulators in government are not sufficiently independent”

and that

“government needs to take a more formal and professional approach to its own ethics obligations. To address this, we recommend a number of stronger ethics rules; that standards regulators in government are given a basis in primary legislation; and that government develops a formal compliance function. The arrangements to uphold ethical standards in government have come under close scrutiny and significant criticism in recent months. Maintaining high standards requires vigilance and leadership. The Committee believes our recommendations outline a necessary programme of reform to restore public confidence in the regulation of ethical standards in government.”

Those words, written in the teeth of one of the most corrupt regimes in Downing Street that the country has ever witnessed, still hold true today, more than four years later.

In Scotland, the seven principles have been extended further with two additional requirements:

“Public Service: Holders of public office have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which they are a board member and to act in accordance with the core tasks of the body.

Respect: Holders of public office must respect fellow members of their public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.”

I recommend those additions for wider consideration.

Interestingly, just this summer the former Prime Minister John Major intervened again, telling the current Prime Minister that he needed to crack down on misconduct in politics and citing examples of scandals in political funding, the award of honours, lobbying, “unsavoury” behaviour, bullying and “Partygate”, as well as whole Governments breaking or bending the law and shielding their own colleagues from censure. His suggestions for improvement included asking the House of Lords advisory commission to scrutinise the suitability of political peerages as well as their propriety, about which I shall say more in a minute or two; giving statutory powers to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments so it can impose sanctions on former politicians and officials who flout time-limited lobbying bans; ensuring that the Government respond swiftly to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; new protections to prevent wealthy foreign interests from influencing politics through mega-donations—I understand that a cap on individual contributions is under consideration, which will be of interest to certain Ministers who have already received extensive donations from organisations directly supplying to sectors within their portfolios; and returning the Electoral Commission to its former status as an independent body free of Government guidance.

Labour promised an ethics committee in its 2024 manifesto, and has now, I understand, established an Ethics and Integrity Commission. One might hope that this body will make a significant contribution, ensuring the proper and full application of the Nolan principles. They are intended to apply not only to Members of this place but to those in the other place, and, in fact, to all public servants. But, as Harold Macmillan famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” I give you the current civil war in the boardroom at the BBC, an organisation for which I have tremendous respect and remain a critical friend. Many feel that this almighty mess may be traced back to the appointments process, which cannot be said to be as we would like it to be.

As for this place, when things go wrong, Government spokespersons tell us that their Ministers do the right thing in these circumstances, but it seems to me that they only do that when they are found out. We have seen an example on this very day. What hurts the most—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will explain towards the end of my speech why it matters so much—is that this Labour Government have been mired in scandal almost from day one. They have accepted expensive glasses, suits, accommodation and clothing for relatives from wealthy donors. A peer has been allowed privileged access to 10 Downing Street and been involved in appointing advisers. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have used costly freebie tickets from lobbyists to attend football games or concerts.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

[Seamus Logan]

If the intervention is brief.

[Dr Arthur]

It will be very brief. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned tickets. As he will know, a Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary used a limousine to attend football matches. Surely that does not sit easily with him. Let me also point out that his party’s Government are running Scotland via Holyrood, and things have not always been above board there. I am thinking particularly about very senior members of his party deleting text messages relating to the covid inquiry, which was an absolute disgrace. Will he join me in condemning that action?

[Seamus Logan]

It always strikes me as very strange that Labour MPs from Scotland who are keen to be elected here spend most of their time talking about events in Holyrood. Why do they not go up the road to the Parliament there?

I was talking about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Furthermore, three junior Ministers have been forced out of office as a result of conflicts of interest in housing and entanglement in an overseas corruption case. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. They are not watching enough Parliament TV. No one can hear you at home—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker; no one can hear them at home.

I can also cite the former Deputy Prime Minister’s resignation over underpaid tax on a second home purchase, and the forced sacking of the former United States ambassador, Lord Mandelson, over his close personal involvement with the late Jeffrey Epstein. What are we to make of the fact that Lord Mandelson still sits in the other place, while the former Duke of York has been stripped of his peerage? Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed invincible Baroness Mone—who, despite admitting to conducting herself in a less than totally honest way in her dealings with the media, and in other ways that, at the very least, fell well below the standards of conduct that we might expect—still has her seat in the other place.

Trust in politics is at an all-time low. In June 2024, four in five Britons said that they were dissatisfied with how they were governed, according to the British social attitudes survey. Other opinion polls show this Government to be the most unpopular in history, with the Prime Minister’s personal ratings at an all-time low—after only 16 months. The Nolan principles are now clearly integrated into the new Public Office (Accountability) Bill, exemplified by the new duty of candour. Duties and obligations are all very well, however, until you are the only person in the room doing the speaking or demonstrating candour.

Sadly, there is still a culture of fear across the public sector, and even in the BBC, in relation to speaking up. Unless the Nolan principles are backed up by proper protection for those who speak up—including a confidential and anonymous reporting platform—whistleblowers will be confronted with a choice: to speak up and potentially lose their career or their job, or to stay silent and potentially fall foul of the law.

An office of the whistleblower would relegate those choices to history and help to reduce or bring an end to the harm to the public. Such an office would be the very embodiment of the Nolan principles. So many of the scandals we have seen could have been prevented or limited if an office of the whistleblower had existed. I hope to join the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) when she meets the relevant Minister in the near future on this point.

To conclude, why does all this really matter, beyond the obvious need for high standards in public office?

China Spying Case

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect.

The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case. He said:

“The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would

“need to be in line with government policy at the time”,

when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify what is happening here. Is the issue that the Government thought that China was a threat to national security but did not declare it, or that they declared it but China was not a threat? I am quite confused about the point he is making.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.

[Dr Arthur]

I think the issue is that the Government in 2023 were not clear on whether or not China was a threat. Did they clearly make the statement that it was a threat, or was China a threat but the Government failed to make that statement?

[Alex Burghart]

The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was

“whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.”

It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am not going to go through it a third time.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Of course, the hon. Lady has a very close personal interest in this case, and it will be well understood by Members across the House why she has expressed concerns today and previously. I am sorry that she does not feel that the Government’s response is adequate, but I assure her that I will endeavour to ensure that this Government do as much as we possibly can to work with her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on this issue, so that she can have confidence that these matters are not able to happen again.

The hon. Lady specifically asked about the démarche I referenced in my statement—it was not an urgent question—on 15 September. As she will know, that was done through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will come back to her with more details should she wish.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and for introducing some facts to the debate—I can see that some alternative realities have come crashing down.

I want to focus on the future and the Minister’s commitment to protecting democratic life in the UK, particularly through the cyber-security measures. He knows that this will rely, at least in part, on the Computer Misuse Act 1990—if my memory serves me right, the 386 Amstrad was then the best computer we could get. As he knows, many people think that that Act fails to distinguish between malicious actors, state or otherwise, and cyber-security professionals working in the public interest, and perhaps the democratic interest. Will he commit to looking at that anomaly?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for saying that facts matter—they really do. That is why I have come to the House today, to set out facts so that Members can make a judgment on how they wish to proceed.

My hon. Friend also makes an important point about cyber-security and the ongoing review of the Computer Misuse Act. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously. In fact, I will have more to say about it shortly.

Official Secrets Act

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I aways am, for the very sensible and reasonable way in which she has made her comments. She raises a number of important observations, many of which I agree with. I do have to say to her what I said to the shadow Home Secretary, which is that it would be completely inappropriate for me to speculate about the reasons why the CPS sought to make this decision. I completely understand why right hon. and hon. Members would ask me about it, but I hope they also understand that I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision. That is very much a matter for it, not for the Government.

On the other points the hon. Member raised, let me give her an assurance that the Government do everything we possibly can to ensure that the UK is a hard target to guard against those malign forces, wherever they may come from, that seek to infiltrate or interfere with our democratic processes. We will ensure that our security and intelligence services and agencies and law enforcement have the necessary tools and resources they need to do the difficult job of guarding against the threats we face. Obviously, as she understands very well, there is also a legislative framework for that, and that is why, I understand, she asked the question about Jonathan Hall KC and the recommendations that she has made recently. As she knows, we have made an absolute commitment that we will legislate as soon as we can, and I give her an assurance that that work continues at pace.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I think we have a duty—all democracies have a duty—to protect democracy from its enemies. I do not doubt that our allies face exactly the same challenges, so I would be interested to know what discussions we have had with our allies about this very challenge. The Minister mentioned that MPs and their offices would get new guidance. Can he commit to a date for that being issued?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about our allies. Many of the threats and challenges we face are shared ones, which is precisely why the UK Government convened the five countries ministerial conference last week. We were proud to host our allies from the Five Eyes nations, with which we work very closely, along with other important international co-operation arrangements. We do work very closely with our allies to ensure that, collaboratively and collectively, we are best able to guard against the threat we face.

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will seek to ensure that the new guidance is in place as soon possible. I also point to the fact that I wrote to all Members of this House just before the recess with advice on protective security and other matters. However, should any Member feel that they need additional support, we will work very closely with you, Mr Speaker, and the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that they get it.

National Security Strategy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his question. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of technology, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. It is why we have put such stress on having an AI action plan to make this country as strong as possible in this field, and why we have made the investment in the supercomputer at Edinburgh and this time put the money behind it. Such technology is a critical part of our strength as a country and we have significant advantage and expertise in it. One aspect of the document is about ensuring that, where we have an advantage, we invest in it and we make sure that it deepens our capability in those crucial ways.

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

I have Dreghorn and Redford barracks in my constituency, so I can only welcome the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war. However, many people will be concerned about the cost. I wonder whether there is an opportunity here: if our NATO allies are increasing spending along with us, is there an opportunity for our defence sector to benefit from that, generating jobs and helping to grow our economy?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right. Decisions to increase defence expenditure are not just about direct spending on the armed forces, but about the supply chain, industrial capability, defence suppliers and, critically, the skills to meet our defence needs. That is why the Prime Minister has referred to a defence dividend. This is not just security policy; it is industrial and skills policy, too.

UK-EU Summit

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.

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

I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?

European Union: UK Membership

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the petitioners on securing this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his eloquent and passionate speech.

I fear that I am in danger of picking at the scars and wounds referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—a very learned Member—but I must reflect on these past nine years. On 23 June 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain within the European Union by 62% to 38%. There was a majority for remain in every single one of Scotland’s local authorities. In anyone’s terms, that was decisive, and if the vote were rerun today, I suggest it would be even more decisive.

It is almost nine years since the disastrous misleading of the electorate by Gove, Johnson, Farage et al., and we might want to consider the extent to which this failure of democracy has increased support for Scottish independence—from 45% to 54% and rising. But still and all, democracy has been undermined in Scotland, because the imposition of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 restricted the previously agreed powers of the Scottish Parliament and ignored the Sewel convention by proceeding with UK legislation without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As a result of Brexit, we are a much poorer nation, at a time when we cannot afford to be poorer. That poverty equates to £3 billion in lost public revenues for Scotland each and every year since we left Europe.

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

The hon. Member is of course right to talk about the economic impact of Brexit, but would it have been different if the vote had been won on our joining the customs union—a vote that the SNP abstained on?

[Seamus Logan]

I cannot comment, as I was not here at the time, but we will come back to the issue of the customs union in a moment.

The UK has endured the highest rate of inflation in the G7 for many months. Brexit has exacerbated the cost of living crisis, driving a £250 increase in annual household food bills. Food and drink inflation in 2023 was at a 45-year high, with food prices up by almost 25 percentage points between 2019 and 2023. Analysis suggests that a third of that increase is due to Brexit, meaning UK households have paid out almost £7 billion to cover the extra costs of overcoming trade barriers that make importing food from the EU harder.

No community has escaped, but inevitably it is our poorest families who are hurting the most. Our business community is also enduring increased costs and damaged trade. According to Scottish Government analysis, 44% of businesses in Scotland face difficulties trading overseas, and named Brexit as the main cause. They face significant additional costs and bureaucracy at a time when their margins are already being squeezed at home by decisions made here in Westminster. Our prized seafood industry has been hit with an estimated 50% increase in the cost of packaging items sent to the EU, and new export health certificates are costing the salmon sector alone approximately £1.3 million per year.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Chair—I notice that you have got younger just in the last few minutes. [Laughter.] I hope it is orderly to flatter the Chair.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Speak for as long as you like!

[Dr Arthur]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate so ably, and the many people in Edinburgh South West who signed this petition. I will speak briefly because what I was going to talk about has been well trod. Brexit has been an absolute tragedy for the UK, both economically and culturally. The Conservatives have taken a share of the blame today, along with Reform and its predecessor parties, but I have to be honest and say that when I think about how close the Brexit result was, I think about my party’s leadership at that time. More could have been done, so some blame should certainly be shared there.

I came to this place last July from higher education, so I want to speak about the impact of Brexit on that sector. I do so in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I should also mention that Patrick Thomson from the University of Strathclyde is shadowing me today—which so far has largely involved drinking coffee when I drink coffee. In higher education, Brexit has been problematic. Fewer students now come from the EU to Scottish universities. That is primarily not a money issue; it is about the diversity of thought within the classroom. It is a real problem and it leaves us all poorer. It is harder for universities to attract staff from the EU now. If we are serious about growing the economy, we need the best staff from around the world in our universities, and we should not be ashamed of that. I remember when we were going through the Brexit process, EU nationals were leaving universities and going back to Europe. That is a tragedy, and we should be ashamed of it.

Research funding from within the EU has got harder. I know it has improved slightly recently, but during the process it was difficult to build consortiums with a UK lead, and some partners were even worried about having UK universities within their consortiums, so we should not overlook the impact of that. Those problems only amplify the wider economic problems that Brexit has imposed on our economy, and they are felt more inside our university sector. I am pleased that the current Government are trying to rebuild relationships and get as close as possible with Europe. If we are doing that work and looking for trailblazers, that should be done within our universities, because there is much more that can be done to rebuild those relationships.

I support this petition on rejoining the EU as soon as possible, but what does “as soon as possible” mean? My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) explained that it could take many years of harmonisation, which is a real challenge for us; however, the bigger challenge is the division and acrimony that comes with referendums, because we would need a referendum to go back in. I have lived through the Scottish independence referendum and the Brexit referendum, both of which divided our communities and were toxic in many respects. They divided families, workplaces and even households, which is incredible. We have to start building the case right now if we are to avoid that situation happening again, and we must make the positive arguments for rejoining the EU. We should start making them from within universities, because that is where international collaboration works best.

I also think that people were not wrong to vote for Brexit, but they were misled, so we have to be honest with them about that. We must explain why things have not unfolded as they were promised by people not in this room today, who should be owning up to the tragedy that they created. We have to be honest, frank and transparent with people, and we have to lead this debate. Hopefully, after the next election, we can build up to that referendum to rejoin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.

I have listened very carefully to all the speeches today. Some were fine; some were perhaps not so fine. And I have to say that I am not entirely sure where we are. I do not know what to make of this debate. I am really confused, and I hope the winding-up speeches will help me to get a better understanding of where the House is.

I say that because I heard Labour say throughout last year’s general election campaign that the only important thing are the red lines. It was all about not joining the single market or the customs union, and that was about it. As the months passed, we started to hear about this reset, and I thought, “Okay, let’s examine this. What does it mean? What are we going to get from this reset?” We have found that it is not very much. For this Government, a “reset” is the EU doing this Government some sort of favour to mitigate some of the impacts of Brexit without the Government giving anything back in return.

People have raised the issues of touring musicians and the youth mobility scheme, with both of which I am particularly associated. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I was a rock musician back in the day and toured Europe extensively. These two issues are related, because a negotiation started to happen within the EU. There was a sense that, in return for offering a youth mobility scheme to Europe, we would secure the rights for our artists to tour freely within the European Union once again, and that some sort of creative passport and visa would be given to our bands so they could once again have the pleasure of playing within the European Union. However, that was rejected out of hand. The Government were not interested, and these are their last words when it comes to a youth mobility scheme:

“We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement.”

I say to Labour Members and colleagues in the Chamber today that I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the European Union. I take heart from the fact they are starting to talk again about the single market and the customs union. And I say sincerely to them, “Go for it! Please, go for it! You’re our only hope.”

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He suggests that we “go for it” on the customs union, but I think he was one of the MPs who abstained when he had that chance. Why the SNP abstained is a great mystery in Scottish politics. Can he explain why?

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot believe we are still debating that. What happened that day, and this is my final word on the issue—the hon. Gentleman was not there, but I was—is that the vote was on a customs union, not the customs union. That proposition was unacceptable to us and other colleagues across the House.

Now I have dealt with that myth, and now it is out of the way, let us get back to the beginning. That was a disappointing intervention, because I am actually praising Labour Members. I am saying that there is hope at last for those of us who want to return to the European Union, and that is great.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate Robert McMaster on creating this petition and I thank the 330 residents of my constituency who signed it—putting us in the top 5% in the country.

Five years ago, I gave my final speech in the European Parliament as leader of the Liberal Democrat group of MEPs. In that speech, I described Brexit as “a backward step” and as

“a vanity project that has no basis in reality.”

The fact that none of the four current Reform Members or any Conservatives—apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is bravely sitting on his own—is here in the Chamber to defend Brexit speaks volumes.

Leaving the European Union was a significant moment. We left a union of nations that was established to promote peace on our continent, that had seen the dismantling of barriers between nations, and that had enabled trade and cultural ties to flourish. In terms of international co-operation, what the European Union has achieved is second to none in the world. I still believe that we are stronger together and that, as a small island nation, we played a much bigger part on the international stage as one of the key members of that union.

Nobody wants to revisit the division and toxicity of the Brexit debate, which dominated our national discourse for years. I understand the hesitation of the Government even to go there, but we must not forget that that debate was fuelled by misinformation and outright lies about what leaving the European Union would mean for the UK. Ultimately, it was a playground rivalry between two of our now former Prime Ministers that played out on the national stage, with one side never really believing that they would win and the other not preparing the ground for what would be a seismic shift in the way we do business and trade with our nearest neighbours.

I still believe that leaving the EU was one of the worst decisions that this country has made, and it is what brought me into politics. Having sat in this Parliament as a Member for almost exactly the same amount of time as I sat in the European Parliament, I can honestly say that the democratic deficit is not in Brussels. As an Opposition MP in this place, I believe I have less influence over decisions that will affect the people and the economy of my constituency than I did as a Member of the European Parliament. A Government elected by just one in three voters in this country have secured the biggest majority—aside from 1997—since the second world war, and yet they have chosen to set themselves red lines around our relationship with the European Union that continue to thwart growth, hamper economic development and curtail the opportunities of our young people, all of which are unnecessary and deeply damaging to the standing and prosperity of the UK.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding—possibly, a wilful ignorance—by those in Government as to what the British public really want now. I will use the example of Brixham in my constituency. Brixham is one of the major fishing ports in the UK, a place where the community believed the lies that they were told about what Brexit would mean for the fishing industry. When campaigning in Brixham over the past couple of years, I lost count of the number of people who told me that they had been lied to and who felt cheated by Brexit. People who would never have wanted to elect a Liberal Democrat wore the yellow T-shirt with the “Stop Brexit” slogan back in 2019, and they went out to vote for me last year, because they are so angry at what they see as a betrayal of their trust.

[Dr Arthur]

I cannot resist—did the hon. Member say that people were so angry they voted Lib Dem?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. People vote Lib Dem for lots of reasons—but maybe they do not think that we will betray them in the same way that the Conservatives did.

Only last week, with many colleagues, I returned to the European Parliament as part of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. While there, I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), refer to research by Aston University that showed that exports to the European Union have fallen by 27% since Brexit. For a Government who want growth, that figure alone should be enough to change their attitude.

That figure is no surprise, however, to anyone who talks to some of the businesses in my constituency. One shellfish exporter tells me that they have to have 17 pieces of paper signed by a vet for every consignment of mussels they export to the EU, making it impossible to trade efficiently with their biggest customer and hampering growth in their business. A small household product retailer has had to end trade with all EU customers because of the new GPSR—general product safety regulation. Delicatessens struggle to cope with the red tape involved in importing smaller shipments of wine and food for the UK, which is the kind of regulations that only big suppliers are able to manage—I am sure that is repeated right across the country. A precision engineering company’s exports have also been badly affected by Brexit red tape—on and on it goes.

Apart from the impact on trade, the opportunities for our young people are being severely curtailed by Brexit. I will not revisit all the arguments that several Members have put forward in this debate, except to say that it is a tragedy that our children and grandchildren will not have the chances that we had—that so many of us had—to go to Europe to develop skills, including cultural understanding and language skills, and to bring all that experience back to the UK. It is high time that the Government agreed a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Last week, I welcomed the PPA agreement that said that the Government understood the need to establish a youth opportunity scheme, including apprenticeships. We all understand the need; let us hope that the Government will go further than that and address it.

Our country has been impoverished by Brexit in so many ways—economically, culturally and politically. I am sure that I am not the only one to be absolutely demoralised by the millions of hours of negotiations that took us out of the European Union, and now, potentially, the millions more that will go into negotiating the piecemeal, bit-by-bit replacements for all the benefits that we lost.