National Security
Scott Arthur Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations.
As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom. It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says that he wished the Government had acted sooner. Did the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 not get Royal Assent a week or two ago? I think our Ministers have acted very quickly indeed.
Matt Vickers
We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football.
Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community.
That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly.
When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act.
But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack.
If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today. They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.
National Security
Scott Arthur Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points, and for his acknowledgment of our intention to introduce legislation that would allow the UK Government to proscribe state-backed entities. He will know that a range of measures have already been leveraged against the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. I think it was back in November last year that I announced a range of measures to defend against the threat that we undoubtedly face from Iran.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about charities is entirely reasonable. We work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Charity Commission, to tackle the kinds of behaviours he describes. He makes a reasonable point; I will take it away, and come back to him with a further update on the work we are doing. Good work is under way. I hope that he gets a sense, not just from the statement but from the various interactions and exchanges we have had over many months, of how seriously we take these issues. If he wants to discuss them with me further, I would be happy to.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his unequivocal support for the Jewish community. I am proud to have an Iranian community in Edinburgh South West. They are concerned about people in that community who speak out against the Iranian regime, particularly journalists, who they fear may be persecuted in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to protect people who speak out against that awful regime? I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a fantastic champion for the Jewish community in the UK: if we have any evidence that Iran is behind some of the attacks we have seen on British soil, why do we not simply close its embassy? We do not have to wait for legislation to do that.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and let me reiterate the Government’s position that the targeting, harassment and coercion of anybody here in the United Kingdom, including, of course, the Iranian community and journalists, is completely unacceptable. On what we are doing to counter the threat from Iran, we have now sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities and have placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS—the Ministry of Intelligence and Security—on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Importantly, we have also rolled out new training for all frontline police officers on state threats, so at a localised level—of course, this will be the case in Scotland as well—police forces have the insight and knowledge to identify and investigate the type of activity that he describes. But I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we treat it, and we will stand firmly against the threat from Iran.
Debate on the Address
Scott Arthur Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Davey
Not at the moment.
To be fair to the Government, some of our current economic problems stem from President Trump and his reckless war in Iran. Let us be absolutely clear: Trump’s war is stoking the cost of living crisis to new and alarming levels—fuel prices are up at the pump, food prices are set to go up even more, and people’s holidays are threatened. The Prime Minister’s biggest success was not taking us into Trump’s damaging war with Iran when the Conservatives and Reform were urging him to do so, yet because of the Government’s failure to build new and deeper economic alliances with Europe and the Commonwealth, as we have been urging them to do, this country is set to be hit far harder by the inflation caused by the situation in the strait of Hormuz.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
We all recognise the impact that Trump’s war is going to have on our economy. The right hon. Gentleman offers membership of the single market and the customs union as a solution to that, but prices in Edinburgh South West are going up right now. How long, in his estimation, would it take to access the single market and become a member of the customs union?
Ed Davey
The hon. Gentleman has obviously not noticed that we are the only party who have put forward a costed package to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps—something that could be done immediately. I think he should pay more attention.
Trumpflation is predicted to be worse here because of the failures of this Government, and indeed the last. Cosying up to this White House was never going to work, and it has not. I suspect that history will show that the Prime Minister’s approach to President Trump was one of his worst mistakes.
The sad truth is that President Trump is one of the reasons why so many people in our country feel insecure, anxious and fearful about the future. From trade tariffs to the weakening of NATO, President Trump has broken all the certainties British people and businesses used to rely on, yet this Government have been far too slow to realise that and to respond to this new reality. The Conservatives and Reform may not have woken up, but there is no excuse for the Government. It has therefore been left to us. The country can know that my party will champion the new and changing international alliances that are so vital for the British economy and the defence of the United Kingdom.
Let me try to find an area of agreement. I do welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward an energy independence Bill, although we will scrutinise it line by line and advance our more ambitious ideas. I have long felt that energy independence should be a long-term goal for our country and our allies; even before Trump’s war in Iran, people and businesses were being hit because of our dependence on others for fuel. Energy bills for households are still around a third higher than before Putin’s war in Ukraine. When fossil fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin can hit the pockets of every family and pensioner in our country and tyrannical regimes like Tehran’s can hold our country and the world to ransom, surely it is time to wake up.
Oil and gas prices have a long history of spiking and hurting our economy. Even when North sea oil and gas production was at its height—now almost 30 years ago—the UK could still be hit because we have always been price takers. While I have always been pragmatic about our North sea oil industry for our economy—not least in Scotland—it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea to high energy prices.
The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. We will therefore push the Government to go further in the energy independence Bill, just as we did on solar power early in this Parliament with the sunshine Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson)—now reflected in law.
The Prime Minister, or whoever replaces him, must take up our plan to protect people from Trumpflation on fuel bills and cut fuel duty, rail fares and bus prices to protect British families and businesses right now.
The Liberal Democrat agenda of greater security for families and businesses begins with greater economic, financial and energy security, but it is also built on greater security for our country. The Government must do far more to bolster our nation’s defences. With Vladimir Putin waging war in Europe and the need to redouble our efforts to support our brave Ukrainian allies to beat Russia, with a wildly unpredictable President sitting in the White House, leading a dangerous and idiotic war in the middle east and undermining NATO at every turn, and with a world order challenged by the rise of China, the case for an urgent and significant rise in defence spending is clearly a strong one.
It is even stronger when one looks at the state of our defence readiness. The Conservatives failed on the No. 1 task of any Government: to defend our country and back our armed forces. They left our Army at its lowest size since the Napoleonic war, and they left our Navy at its lowest size since the English civil war. Yet this Labour Government have moved at a snail’s pace, failing month after month to publish their own defence investment plan. In contrast, we have called for the immediate launch of defence bonds to raise £20 billion over two years, building on successful models used by Poland, and for a commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. We have argued for a new European rearmament bank so that our defence industries will lead the next generation of defence technologies.
If the history of the last century taught us anything, and if the experience of President Trump has taught us anything, it is essential and urgent that we work with our European and Commonwealth allies to secure and defend our country, our values and our way of life.
Central to our British way of life is the NHS, to which I now turn. It is important I do so, because I am likely to be the only Opposition party leader to stand up for healthcare in this debate, as the Conservatives are so embarrassed by their record and Reform’s leader has spent decades saying that he wants to get rid of the NHS entirely. The Government would have us believe that they have turned the NHS around after the mess left by the last Government, but when he is not plotting his next leadership bid against the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State would have Labour Back Benchers believe that he is fixing the NHS. If only.
Now we are told that the Health Secretary is planning to resign tomorrow. This resignation is taking so long that it would give NHS waiting lists a run for their money. Anyone who visits their local hospital knows that the NHS remains in a critical state. Thousands of people are still being treated in hospital corridors every day. We are now even seeing job adverts for people to provide care in corridors.
Dave Doogan
No. I am going to make progress and close my speech.
Defence is the first duty of government, but under this Labour Government, if we had a significant investment for every blunderbuss piece of hyperbole and rhetoric on defence, we would be in a far better position than we are. The Prime Minister said in his speech earlier that we are negotiating a de-escalation of the war in Iran. He did not tell us which of the three protagonists was listening to the pontifications of the UK Prime Minister—because not one of the three participants in that conflict could care less what the Prime Minister thinks about the war in Iran.
The defence investment plan—the road map for what defence will look like in the United Kingdom for the next decade—is now a year late. I do not know what the Government think they can get away with, but if their signal, apex piece of defence legislation is more than a year late, that tells this Parliament and everyone up and down these islands that they do not have a clue about defence any more than they have a clue about anything else.
Dr Arthur
I am genuinely grateful to be here for the hon. Gentleman’s first speech as SNP leader here in Westminster. It is just a shame that only one other of his fellow SNP MPs is here—no doubt they are all on important business. I know that he does champion the defence sector, unlike some of his colleagues in Scotland, but he sits on the Scottish Affairs Committee and he knows the sector’s concerns about skills development and education in Scotland. Does he share those concerns, and what is he doing to influence his colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that the sector is more fully supported?
Dave Doogan
The defence sector is a significant part of the Scottish economy, and I just wish that the hon. Gentleman and his Unionist colleagues in the Labour party, and in other lesser parties, would acknowledge the fact that this is a mutual endeavour and that the UK benefits greatly from the skills and expertise that exist in Scotland, as well as from the apprenticeships, training and investment. Let us not forget that everybody who works in the defence sector in Scotland went through a Scottish school, a Scottish apprenticeship, a Scottish college or a Scottish university. There is this idea that everything was fantastic previously and is terrible now. The former is not true, and the latter is not true either. It is a work in progress, and we are investing heavily in Scottish education. That is why such a high percentage of people leaving school in Scotland are going on to a positive destination.
The Prime Minister said that he was going to take steps to bring the United Kingdom into the very heart of Europe. Well, he is not going to do that without rejoining the EU, so this is yet more hyperbole and fantasy. My final word on this is that a Government in this level of disarray—with this level of division and infighting, who have caused so much damage in such a short period of time to people’s livelihoods and to the economy—needed to make an emergency response today, but this King’s Speech was anything but. I look forward to them getting their house in order, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Government Procurement Strategy
Scott Arthur Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Ward
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised an important issue, one that is obviously incredibly important to his constituency and many others. As I say, we are starting with the four industries I have set out today, but we will look at others going forward, and I would be happy to talk with him and see what more we can do in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. It is common sense that we use the Government’s procurement power to support British jobs, but sadly that common sense is lacking in Scotland, where the Scottish Government are buying ferries from Poland, Turkey and China. Yesterday, Unite highlighted that the Scottish Government have given a grant to private bus companies in Scotland to buy 166 buses from China; meanwhile, publicly owned Lothian Buses is using its share of the grant to buy buses from the fantastic Alexander Dennis Ltd. Does the Minister join me in hoping that on 7 May, Scotland will vote Labour to elect a Government who put British jobs first?
I have a Fox’s Burton’s Companies UK biscuit factory in my constituency, which makes a delicacy known as the Jammie Dodger biscuit. Will this change make it more likely that when I next visit the Minister’s Department, Jammie Dodger biscuits will be available to me?
Chris Ward
I have to say that of all the questions I was mulling over when I was going through this, the impact on Jammie Dodgers was not top of my list, but maybe it should have been—I will think about that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about how the Scottish Government have not used their procurement powers well enough over the years, and the fiascos he highlighted demonstrate that. It is a shame that no one from the SNP is in the Chamber to hear what he says, but it is good that Labour MPs are present to make the case for doing more to support jobs in Scotland.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Scott Arthur Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable.
One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador.
Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks. Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile.
Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships.
When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk. Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started.
Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am not in the Peter Mandelson fan club—I am old enough to remember his first life in government—but this morning we heard that UKVS had judged him to be a borderline risk and that officials thought that that risk could be managed. That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman is outlining.
David Davis
That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—
David Davis
No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down.
No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique.
Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew. It is as plain as a pikestaff.
So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.
Antisemitic Attacks
Scott Arthur Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is right that we should be—and I think are—very proud of our collective Jewish heritage. I pay tribute to her nan. I hope the hon. Member would acknowledge that the Rycroft review is an important step forward in tackling some of the issues that she raised. I hope she understands how seriously we take the commitments that we have made. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has described, we will bring forward amendments as soon as we can.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
For most of my life, the UK was becoming a more tolerant society, so it really pains me that in recent years we have been going backwards; that is particularly true of the hate and violence faced by the Jewish community. That is why it was right that Kanye West was banned from entering the UK.
Last week, I attended a Yom HaShoah event right next to Parliament, in which the Jewish community came together to mark the end of the Holocaust. They also reflected on the fact that there are still challenges ahead in the UK, which should shame us. The Minister has likened some of the recent violence in the UK to that in the Iranian state. What action will we take if there is found to be any connection between the people arrested and the Iranian state? The previous Government cut off diplomatic relations with Iran and its barbaric regime; will he follow suit?
Dan Jarvis
At moments like this, it can be tempting to focus on those who seek to divide our communities, but it is also important to reflect, as I have done, on the extraordinary good work in communities right around our country. On the point that my hon. Friend made at the end of his remarks, the National Security Act 2023 provides us with the legislative framework we need to take action against those who would seek to undermine our national security, and we will do everything we can to keep the public safe.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Scott Arthur Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he has brought it here today. It has been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion. As a Government, we are serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls, and I just cannot conclude that giving Mandelson £75,000 is compatible with that, so I hope that he repays it. Constituents in Edinburgh South West are really concerned about Epstein’s links into the British establishment, particularly given the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson himself. I know that a live court case and investigation are under way, but can the Government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein’s links into the British state, once these court cases are over?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this country and that investigations are happening in the United States, in Congress and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody who had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to the events or organisations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any questions and trying to help bring justice to the victims, who have been waiting for too long.
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
Scott Arthur Excerpts(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He did forget, though, in his recollections, that we could have had a customs union if he had not abstained on that decision, along with his 35 SNP colleagues. That is a simple fact. Perhaps he can address that in his winding-up speech.
One of the challenges we face as a country is that so many people in the UK feel left behind. They still feel the impacts of the banking crisis and of covid. Both were once in a lifetime but have been exaggerated and amplified by Brexit. The Brexiteers told us that all we needed to do to set our country on a wealthier path was to get rid of the Europeans. I have to say that it is very similar to the argument we hear from Donald Trump about Mexicans and also the argument we hear from the SNP about getting rid of the rest of the UK. All three are wrong for exactly the same reasons.
Now the same Brexiteers tell us that all we have to do to set our country on a wealthier path is to get rid of immigrants—to other them. Again, that is not correct, particularly when we remember that there are about 350,000 immigrants working in our NHS. We all know that the route to prosperity is to work more closely with our biggest trading partners, and for us that is the European Union. I am proud that this Government have taken us in that direction. I do hope that one day we rejoin the EU, but I do recognise that, as others have hinted, that has to come after a manifesto commitment and a referendum. It is not something that any of us want to rush into right now, but I welcome the fact that, day by day, we are getting closer to our European partners.
Lord Mandelson
Scott Arthur Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Flynn
No, I will not.
Today’s debate is important because we will get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did—I will come to that—but also because we in this Chamber cannot forgive or forget the judgment of the Prime Minister when he chose to make that political choice. It was a choice that Labour Members have told us repeatedly was a political risk. It was not a political risk. It was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because Peter Mandelson knew when he continued the relationship that the man was a convicted sex offender.
Stephen Flynn
I said I will not. The hon. Member can sit down and listen to my speech today, as his colleagues should have done on many occasions in months gone past.
The Prime Minister has let down not only himself but his office and the public—a public to whom he promised change. He said that he would tread lightly on their lives. Do any of the public believe that today? Do any of them have confidence in his judgment? Are the Labour party seriously saying to the public that they still have confidence in the Prime Minister’s judgment—that we can trust him to make the big decisions, when he cannot even accept that a relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein should have stopped Peter Mandelson becoming the ambassador to the United States of America?
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I really do think that he is misreading the mood of the House. We are trying to find consensus on what is being debated. He talks about articles in The Guardian and what was in the public domain, but he will know that last year, John Swinney stayed in Peter Mandelson’s house in Washington. He does not always stay with ambassadors, but he chose to then. If John Swinney knew about this—it was in the public domain—why did he stay with Peter Mandelson, and why did he not answer questions on this yesterday, when he was asked them five times?
Stephen Flynn
What a desperate and foolish intervention. I would have let the hon. Member intervene earlier, if I had known that was coming. He knows fine well that the First Minister of Scotland does not appoint the ambassador to the United States of America. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does. I thought that for once we had consensus in this House, and agreed that the Prime Minister lacked judgment by appointing Mandelson. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member disagree and think that the Prime Minister should have appointed him?
Stephen Flynn
Yet another one—the hon. Member excels himself.
On Monday, the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box, and I asked him two questions. I asked him to make an unreserved apology to each and every victim of Epstein for his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He chose not to. I then asked him if he agreed, at that moment, that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation, because I had just reported him to the police. He chose not to agree; he said:
“Only the SNP could go about this in this way”.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 34.]
Here we are, two days later, and Peter Mandelson is being investigated. Importantly, the Prime Minister has still not said sorry. That is an abdication of his responsibility, as he has had numerous occasions to apologise. It is another betrayal of those victims.
We must support this motion to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored, and to properly understand why the Prime Minister took the decision that he took. Let none of us be in any doubt: these discussions about manuscript amendments and motions, and how we decide on anything, will not matter as much to the public as the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment. That will lead to his departure from No. 10.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I have been waiting for three hours to speak in this debate, and I wanted to talk about consensus, but it seems that my speech comes just one place too late in the list.
I will start by following on from the point that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made about recovering Mandelson’s pay, or at least stopping the pay being awarded to him. My constituents in Edinburgh South West want to go further and recover Mandelson’s pension, too. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate. It is right that we debate these issues; people in my constituency certainly expect us to.
On consensus, I think where we are at is that the SNP, the Greens and the Lib Dems back the original Humble Address. I am not sure whether Your Party backs it —perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was just speaking on his own behalf. The Conservatives seem to accept that their Humble Address was a little reckless, and they want to support the involvement of the ISC. The Government have now shown leadership and brought that in. I think that is where we are at. [Interruption.] Members can feel free to correct me. Do they want to correct me? I am happy to take an intervention.
I expected to hear a little more today about what Mandelson may or may not have been getting up to during the era when Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown were trying to save our economy. I have huge respect for Gordon Brown. He is a man of real integrity. Alistair Darling is a predecessor in my seat, and he was a man of great integrity and someone whom I really respected. I think we can all agree that Mandelson was the complete opposite of those two great men and political leaders of my era. I do not doubt that once the criminal investigation is completed, there will be the public inquiry that some people are talking about.
It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made absolutely clear why that is so important.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has just said that he thinks it is absolutely right that this House focuses on Peter Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein, and I welcome him for suddenly coming to that conclusion. Can I therefore ask him why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to appoint Mandelson as the US ambassador when—we know this after this afternoon’s revelation—the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson still had a relationship with Epstein?
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
We know the decision that was made. Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador when it was known that there was a relationship with a convicted paedophile, but it was “worth the risk”. So what is “worth the risk”? What level of relationship with a paedophile is acceptable? Is it coffee in the morning, or dinner at night? There should be no relationship with a convicted paedophile.
Dr Arthur
Hopefully the documents will explain what happened. Hopefully.
I know I do not look old enough, but I have been around for a long time. I can remember Mandelson’s first lap, and his second lap, when he went to the Lords. Now there is this third lap. My general perception of him is not of someone I would trust. I would not buy a second-hand car from him. However, that is based on my perception from the media. I have not seen the details of the vetting procedure that he went through. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), described the selection procedure, and I accept that this Government inherited it, but I thought it sounded like an absolute shambles. The steps that it involved were nothing like what I expected. I expected much more detail, and I hope that the documents that we are talking about will give us at least a bit more.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The hon. Member says that he would not buy a second-hand car from Mandelson. Would he have made him ambassador to the United States?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?
Dr Arthur
At lunchtime, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, we heard at length from the Prime Minister that we will release this information, so that people have a chance to look at it. We can speculate, but today’s debate is about releasing the information into the public domain, so that people can be reassured that the right decision has been made, and if it has not, we can question it.
Ms Creasy
My hon. Friend was here when I said that we should not only deal with this situation—I am with those who were not happy about the original amendment —but also think about what we can change fundamentally. This is not the first time we have seen controversial people appointed to positions. Does my hon. Friend, as a relatively new Member, share my interest in learning from other jurisdictions around the world? For example, there could be pre-appointment hearings before Select Committees, which could object to shortlists. Could we not toughen up our role as eyes and ears looking out for what good democracy practice looks like?
Dr Arthur
The vetting procedure, as described by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed so insubstantial. My hon. Friend is right: we have to do much better. I am recruiting a community engagement officer, and it struck me that we exercised more rigour in checking the background of that person, although I accept that I may not have understood the procedure that was described.
It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but if Mandelson had not been mentioned in the data that was released at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today. They are, perhaps, the winners in that regard.
Earlier, I was guilty of saying that the arguments that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) presented showed that he had misread the room, but he was right in one respect. He was right to say that Mandelson was a traitor—and I hope that he meant not just a traitor to the United Kingdom, but a traitor to the survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse—and, in fact, survivors of sexual abuse everywhere.
I think that the residents of Edinburgh South West, and everyone else, expect us to work together on this, and to reach consensus, and hopefully we can. I am still not sure whether the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Greens are on board, but I think we are moving much closer to one another. [Interruption.] My apologies. It seemed that they wanted to back the original Humble Address, rather than agreeing to the involvement of the ISC in the process; that was my understanding.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In my speech, I said explicitly, from the Lib Dem Front Bench, that I welcomed the Minister’s openness to the ISC being part of this process.
Dr Arthur
I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps I was not listening quite as carefully as I should have, so I really do thank the hon. Lady.
I end by thanking our Front Benchers for listening to the arguments of Members from right across the Chamber, for showing a bit of leadership, and for hopefully bringing us together with some consensus.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman’s speech is coming across to me as quite miraculous, and not in a good way. He is claiming that his Front Benchers have shown leadership this afternoon. Let us remind the House exactly what has happened: his party’s leadership and Front Benchers have changed their amendment to the motion, because they knew that Government Members would not have voted for it.
Dr Arthur
Can we just reflect for a second? The original Humble Address was reckless. It was going to put information in the public domain that would have damaged our country. It could be argued that the original amendment was an overreaction to that, but we are getting to a good place now; we are reaching consensus.
Wendy Morton
All things being equal, would the hon. Gentleman have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby if a Division was called on the motion?
Dr Arthur
I had complete confidence that the Minister would reach consensus in the House today. Seriously though, would Opposition Members have voted for their own motion, which would have put sensitive information into the public domain? I really doubt it. I think better of them than that.
Wendy Morton
I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Scott Arthur Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
We are not spending our time indulging in the games of opposition; we are getting on with the serious job of government. That includes delivering a record package of employment rights to help raise pay, because the critical point the hon. Member failed to mention is that three quarters of the kids in poverty in our country today are in working households. That is why the Employment Rights Bill matters, and that is why the 220,000 people being lifted out of poverty as a consequence of increases in the minimum wage matter. We have a comprehensive approach, which is why we have a comprehensive strategy.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s very passionate advocacy for higher education in Scotland. He will be well aware that the Scottish Government have received an additional £11 billion since the general election, money that could have been spent on Scotland’s world-class universities and colleges, but as a recent Audit Scotland report shows, those institutions have been put under immense stress, with Scottish colleges suffering a 20% cut in real-terms funding since 2021. That is utterly shameful.
Dr Arthur
Scotland’s universities have been facing a funding crisis that has been many years in the making. Funding for students in Scottish universities is currently over £2,000 less than it is in England. Universities Scotland yesterday, in response to the SNP Budget, made it clear that it will have little impact on this problem, as
“it does not adequately address”
the situation. No Government in Europe cares less about the education of their young people. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister make time to visit Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh South West to meet the vice-chancellor, Richard Williams, the staff and the students to hear about the impact of this situation?
Kirsty McNeill
I agree with my hon. Friend that Scotland’s young people have been appallingly let down, which is why it is time for a new direction. I would, of course, be delighted to meet him and representatives of Heriot-Watt to discuss Scotland’s desperate need for a new direction.