Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I think many Conservative voters in Edinburgh South West would be disgusted by the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments. The only reassurance I can give them is that when he made the comments, behind him were four fully empty Benches—perhaps those Members had prior sight of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Eman attended my constituency surgery on Saturday; she has probably attended more of my surgeries than any other constituent. She was in tears talking about this issue, not because she has watched it on TV or seen pictures on social media but because she has lost friends and family in this conflict. She is an amazing woman, and it is always fantastic speaking to her. On her behalf, I want to ask a couple of questions. First, I know that it is a very congested site, but is there no prospect of airdropping aid into Gaza? Secondly, Netanyahu has said that this is nothing to do with Israel—that it has no responsibility. Was there any acceptance in the diplomatic talks that Israel is partly responsible at least and holds the keys to resolving it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for conveying so powerfully the views of his constituent. It is those direct connections that we often hear about so passionately in our constituencies. Indeed, in my own surgeries in Cardiff South and Penarth I have had individuals who have family in Gaza, and I know humanitarian workers who have worked there as well.

Airdrops are an extraordinarily complex logistical operation to pull off. The best way to get aid in is by reopening those crossing points and making sure that there are no restrictions on dual use. That would have the maximum impact that we want. I could not have been clearer: Israel ultimately has the responsibility. As the occupying power, it has the legal and moral responsibility to allow in this lifesaving aid. We urge it to do so.

25th Anniversary of 9/11

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apt intervention. I absolutely agree with him: the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America, our strongest and longest-standing ally.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the loss of emergency workers in that brutal attack, and we celebrate and salute their courage. But we now know, since the attack, that more firefighters have died as a result of their work on the site than died on the day of the attack itself. When we remember those who died that day, we also have to think about the legacy of the attack, including those firefighters who have been lost.

[Alan Mak]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point, and it is one that I will come to later in my speech. I was just saying to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is right that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and colleagues from the United States, because although the attack took place on American soil, it was a global tragedy. Its victims came from across the world. Its grief crossed borders and its consequences shaped the quarter of a century that followed.

The work of the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York is guided by three simple principles: to honour, to educate and to inspire. Those principles should also guide us in how we mark this anniversary in Britain: honouring those who are lost, educating those too young to remember and drawing inspiration from the courage shown in the face of terror.

For those of us old enough to remember that day, the events are seared into our memory. We remember where we were when we heard the news. We remember watching the images from New York and struggling to understand what we were seeing. We remember the shock of the second plane striking the second tower when it became clear that this was not an accident, and we remember the towers falling, knowing that thousands of people were still trapped inside.

But the passage of 25 years creates a new responsibility. Every child now at school was born after the attacks. Many young adults have no personal memory of 9/11. Indeed, one current Member of this House was not yet born when the attacks took place. In fact, across the United Kingdom, around 20 million people—close to three in 10—have been born since the attacks. For a growing number of our population, 9/11 is not a memory; it is something they encounter only in textbooks, in online videos or in brief references during foreign policy discussions. For them, it is history. That change is inevitable, but forgetting is not. We must ensure that future generations understand what happened, who was lost and why the attacks still matter.

Young people should understand that al-Qaeda’s terrorism was driven by a murderous ideology. They should also understand the extraordinary courage shown in response.

Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I hope I am not alone in knowing that the vast majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis want peace. As an optimist, I hope that they vote for it when they get the chance later this year in both Palestine and Israel.

It is clear that the consensus here is that this expansion would be a bad idea—it would be illegal and bad for any hope of peace in the future—but what about the existing settlements? How do we consider them? I know that the Minister has talked about trade, but what about their actual existence as a barrier to peace? Are the Government raising that with Netanyahu’s Government?

[Mr Falconer]

We consider those settlements to be illegal, and we are clear with the Israeli Government that that is our position.

Sudan

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. We often use UN agencies internally in Sudan, because they are some of the most trusted support mechanisms for supporting peoples displaced inside Sudan. As I mentioned earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), on neighbouring countries where refugees are moving to—Chad is a particular point of movement for people—we are offering additional support. We keep the situation under constant review so we can support people who are refugees in-country and those who are moving outside Sudan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep that under constant review to provide more support where we need to.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and the level of reassurance he has given us. I also thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who yesterday introduced me to three men with a connection to Sudan. They were all absolutely distraught by what is happening, and I really felt for them. They asked why we were not discussing the situation more; all of us, not just the Minister, have to ask why that is.

The men had two questions. First, can the Minister confirm that we are not exporting weapons to the United Arab Emirates for use in Sudan? Secondly, the Minister has told us that the cut to aid has not affected the women and girls who are fleeing the region into Chad, but are those women and girls getting all the support they need?

[Chris Elmore]

The point that my hon. Friend makes, as many Members have, about the international spotlight on Sudan is a correct one, and also applies to our domestic media. We have ringfenced funding for support for women and girls. We are offering more support and working with the international coalition to end violence against women and girls. I can assure him that one of the Foreign Secretary’s six priorities is around women and girls, and Sudan forms a crucial part of that.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I know that my hon. Friend has long been committed to these issues, and that he has constituents in the region who have strong views as well, and I am glad for his continued engagement. I will not provide further comments on sanctions from the Dispatch Box for reasons that people will understand, but we will keep all measures under review as the situation evolves.

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

Last week, France sanctioned Itamar Ben-Gvir, almost a year to the day since the Minister made the same announcement from this Dispatch Box. I thank him for the leadership he has shown over the past months and years. He is right not to pick a side in this war other than the Lebanese Government, because both Iran’s Hezbollah and Netanyahu have shown a disregard for civilian life right across the region. People and organisations in Edinburgh South West want to be reassured that if a ceasefire is established, the aid we are putting into that region is sufficient and scalable.

The Minister started off by talking about Iran, so I have to mention the fact that we have seen the industrialisation of the death penalty in Iran against the Iranian people—often young people who have simply been out protesting. I know that he raised concerns about this—in, I think, November last year. Is there more that we can do? I know it is a really difficult situation.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the leadership we have shown on these issues. He is absolutely right. Let me just reiterate to the House our total opposition to the death penalty everywhere. What has happened in Iran, particularly since the protests in January, has been an absolutely awful cracking down on their own people. The Government have imposed very significant restrictions on communications, so some of the detail of that crackdown is not as accessible to us now as it once was. I have grave fears about how Iranians are being treated within Iran. We will continue to monitor this closely and raise it with the Iranian authorities with the force that my hon. Friend would expect.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do want, however, to challenge her on some of what she said. It is important to recognise and reassure trans people that there are still protections in the Equality Act via the gender reassignment protected characteristic, and this includes direct and indirect discrimination. It is also important to note and not to take for granted the choices that we make in government; they are active choices to pursue and support people’s rights. The Government have also recently updated hate crime legislation to make hate crimes against LGBT people an aggravated offence. We will also shortly bring forward legislation for a trans-inclusive conversion practice ban to end that abusive practice. It is important not to say that we are not supportive of trans rights and LGBT+ rights. We must recognise the progress we are making where we can, the complexity of the debate we are having today, and the importance of ensuring that, in complying with the law, we are supporting women and single-sex spaces alongside treating trans people with respect and dignity.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement and her attempts to present it in quite an even and fair way, because this debate is already far too toxic. She will acknowledge, however, that the guidance will change the lives of many people, particularly those who have been living as trans for many years. She is right that we should protect the rights of women and trans people, but I am keen to understand what that means for those delivering single-sex services that only have very limited space—no space to create that third space. What do they do? If they are a charity, where do they find funding to make that happen?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will find that similar scenarios are shared in some of the guidance and the worked examples. For the vast majority of organisations, the changes may actually be very small. As organisations seek to comply with the guidance and the law, it is important to recognise that if there are changes to be made, as I said, in the vast majority of cases, they will be very small, and that they can take advice should they be unsure.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Mrs Badenoch]

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

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

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

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

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

“found out for the first time”

that Mandelson had been granted

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

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

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

“necessary security clearances…before confirming your choice.”

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

“The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is what we are looking at.

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

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

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Richard Tice]

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

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

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Doughty]

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

Gaza Healthcare System

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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