Scott Arthur MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  This is about equality. There is a fantastic charity called The Eve Appeal, which is focused on gynaecological cancers. It makes the point that a disproportionate number of people with these cancers end up being diagnosed in A&E, by which time it is too late. Through a meeting I had with Blood Cancer UK, I know that ethnic minorities are much more likely to face a diagnosis in A&E than in a doctor’s surgery. This is something that we should do, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it is a matter of equality.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  What an honour it is to follow my fellow Scot, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), on this topic. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the way she introduced this debate. I think she said she was guided by experience, but I know she is also guided by the love she has for her sister. I thank her for securing the debate. She highlighted a real inequality at the heart of this matter—if she does not mind me saying so—as her sister was able to access the best treatment in Germany. Some people are able to pay a bit more or to run a Crowdfunder when they are faced with a brain tumour or another type of rare cancer; really, though, we should all have access to the same excellent treatment here in the UK. I will speak a little about my private Member’s Bill and a little about the treatment for people with brain tumours in Scotland. Every year, more than a thousand people in Scotland will be diagnosed with a brain tumour. That may not sound like a large number, but, as we have heard already, while survival rates for many other cancers have improved, the needle for brain tumours has barely moved at all. Only 15% of adults in Scotland diagnosed with a high-grade brain tumour will survive beyond five years. I know the weight of those numbers personally. My father-in-law was fit, active and full of life at the time of his diagnosis. It turned out that he had glioblastoma—the most aggressive form of brain tumour. He went from being a healthy man who enjoyed spending time with his grandchildren to having less than six months to live. As we have heard, that sudden, brutal trajectory is a story shared by far too many families. I always say that my father-in-law was a very dignified man, but the condition did not respect that at all in the impact it had on him and my wife’s family. My father-in-law inspired my private Member’s Bill, the Rare Cancers Bill, which we have heard about today. It starts Committee stage in the Lords on Wednesday—let us hope there are no amendments. I thank everyone who has helped me to get the Bill this far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and her colleague Baroness Elliott, who is supporting us in the Lords very ably. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his support—my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden arranged a meeting for us very early on. I also thank the Under-Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is in the Chamber today and who has been a fantastic advocate from day one. Even the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has been a fantastic supporter. I have to add my thanks to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones)—I was going to call him Mr Cancer, but that does not sound like a great title. He is passionate about this and is widely respected across the sector. Of course, I also thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). I have met his sister many times; she is—if I could put it this way—a very forthright person. When I first met her, at a reception for a cancer charity, she said that she was driven not through self-interest, but because as a mother, she wanted to spend longer with her children and to see them grown up. Who can argue with that? Lastly, I thank the many charities—more than 40—that have been supporting us. Of particular relevance to this debate is Brain Tumour Research and the Brain Tumour Charity. I also thank H/Advisors for the work it is doing in helping us to keep the campaign pointing in the right direction, which is not always easy, I have to say. Over the past year, I have been moved by the courage of so many people I have met, including Georgie. Through meeting both patients and families and through broader engagement with charities, clinicians and survivors, I have learned that there is no single easy solution to the problem that we face. I have been guilty of saying that nothing has been happening in the sector, but the reality is that a lot is happening—it just needs a push in the right direction, or, as some would say, a kick up the backside. I do not know if that is acceptable language, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are promising breakthroughs in development, particularly in genome testing and targeted therapies, and crucially there is now national momentum behind this. The newly announced national cancer plan allocates £13.7 million to the NIHR brain tumour research consortium; through this and other significant partnerships, we will accelerate the volume of high-quality, innovative brain tumour research taking place right across the UK. This is a promise that we all—including the Minister—have a duty to ensure is delivered. I hope that we debate this subject regularly and that we can be impressed at the progress our Government are making. Importantly, the plan recognises a long-standing problem in cancer research: too much early-stage discovery science never makes it through to translational research that delivers real diagnostics and treatments for patients. The commitment to link discovery scientists with translational researchers, to connect research infrastructure and to co-fund the Cancer Research UK brain tumour centres of excellence is exactly the kind of approach that this field has needed for many years. For Scotland to truly benefit from this progress, we must ensure that our systems are ready to plug in to this UK-wide effort. One of my constituents, Dr Faye Robertson, is a consultant clinical oncologist and honorary clinical senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh. She is at the forefront of this fight as part of a team on a mission to deliver breakthrough treatments and pursue cures for thousands of patients and families facing devastating diagnoses each year. Faye’s team’s spin-out company Trogenix has secured £70 million of new finance to expand, upscale and develop. That sounds like a lot of money, but I understand that £70 million is just a drop in the ocean if real progress is to be made. They are doing fantastic work. Pre-clinical studies have shown that the biotech company’s breakthrough Odysseus platform could kill cancerous brain cells and stimulate the immune system against the tumours, while leaving the surrounding healthy cells and tissues untouched. This massive investment will accelerate Trogenix’s lead programme in glioblastoma multiforme, including a move to clinical trials. By chance, I was at a mosque just outside my constituency on Saturday evening welcoming children from Gaza into the UK and meeting some of the health workers who have been supporting them. Among them was a neurologist who knew about the Trogenix work, which, he said, has made breathtaking progress although there is still a long way to go. It is work like that which gives me hope. I met Faye in my office. She is hugely impressive, a fantastic communicator and a real intellect—if she is listening I have probably embarrassed her. I trust her when she says: “Whole-genome sequencing is changing the outlook for treatment of many cancers, unlocking the promises of precision treatment. Yet in Scotland, out patients are still waiting.” This is not a political point; it is just a matter of fact. I also spoke to Dr Sarah Kingdon, who is the Tessa Jowell neuro-oncology clinical fellow at the Beatson cancer centre in Glasgow and also at the Edinburgh cancer centre—these people always seem to have long titles—and she absolutely agreed that there is a real gap when it comes to Scotland being able to access treatment because of the lack of testing. The neurologist I met on Saturday said that he was sending samples way down to the south of England and would have to wait for those samples to return. It is completely unacceptable that we do not have ready access to this technology in Scotland. While other parts of the UK are moving toward routine whole-genome sequencing, Scottish patients face what has been described as a “genomic gap”. We have the scientific expertise—that is beyond doubt—and we have world-class infrastructure in Edinburgh. What we lack is a consistent policy commitment to make genomic testing a standard part of care. Without genomic testing, clinicians are fighting in the dark. We owe it to the families who have watched loved ones fade in a matter of months to ensure that Scotland is not just a place where research happens but one where research reaches the patient. The national cancer plan shows that momentum is building right across the UK, and I hope breakthroughs in brain tumour research will be with us soon. Let us ensure that Scotland is ready to be part of that future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden again for opening this debate and for the leadership she is showing. Very briefly, I want to highlight three fantastic campaigns, and then I have one ask of the Minister. The first campaign is Brain Cancer Justice, which Georgie is a part of. It advocates increased funding, research and support for brain cancer patients and families who are impacted by this deadly disease. I am sure that all Members here give those involved in the campaign our full support—otherwise I think they might be in the wrong debating Chamber. The second campaign is for Owain’s law, which aims to standardise the process for storing and using brain tumour tissues, as we heard from the hon. Member for Witney. Ellie, who runs the campaign, is a fantastic communicator—it is impossible to disagree with her, because she is so passionate. She held a reception last week with someone called Samantha—I cannot quite remember where in the north of England she was from. Like Ellie, she has lost her husband to a brain tumour. She is devastated because she still loves her husband and is bringing up their children. She was explaining her predicament to us, all the while clutching pictures of her husband. It is awful that women are coming into this place so desperate but still hanging on to the love that they have for their loved ones. We have to listen to these people and demand action. The last campaign I want to mention is for Hugh’s law. This is a campaign for paid leave and financial support for parents of critically ill children. Brain tumours are one of the biggest cancer types for children, so it really applies to this debate. I pay tribute to Brentford football club, which has already accepted the actions of this campaign. It has not waited for the Government to encourage companies or make it mandatory; it has just got on and done it because it is the right thing to do. I hope that others follow. I have one ask of the Minister. I met Cancer Research UK on Monday last week—a fantastic charity, despite the challenges it faces, which we heard about earlier. One of those challenges, its representatives explained to me, is that each year it spends £870,000 on visa costs to bring the best researchers into the UK to help in the fight against this awful condition and others. If life sciences are a key part of our economy, and if we want to tackle these cancers, perhaps colleagues elsewhere in Government might be encouraged to waive the visa costs for these fantastic researchers, and hopefully more will then follow them.

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  This plan gives so many people so much hope, and it was great to see it delivered with so much passion and energy. It is clear why the Minister is really respected by many people right across the sector. I have to say that I have never seen a statement delivered with so much energy—more of that, please. I also thank the Minister for her leadership and for supporting my Rare Cancers Bill from her very first day in office. She has found a place in the plan for my Bill, and I really do thank her for that. I have three questions. Will rare cancers be recorded and reported separately as part of the plan? What influence will the cancer board have over the delivery of the plan? I think that point is quite important. Lastly, others have spoken about community organisations. In Gorgie in Edinburgh South West, we have the House of Hope, led by Lisa Fleming. She delivers a fantastic support service for women who have a breast cancer diagnosis. The next time the Minister is in Edinburgh, will she visit Lisa and her team?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  That is why I am here, in this debate. I want these documents released, so that we can understand what decisions were made.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  This debate is about trying to find agreement on how the information can be released into the public domain. It is not about grandstanding for social media or making the front page of The National . We are trying to take the country forward.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I am trying to sit down. I will do so.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On the basis of my knowledge of him, absolutely not, but I have not seen the vetting documents, insubstantial as they appear to be.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier I gave an example of an entrepreneur who came to the UK from the USA. He spent a lot of money coming here, and he feels he has spent an important part of his life in the UK—when he could have spent it elsewhere in the world—but he feels betrayed now, because of the review of the ILR arrangements for him and others. Does the Minister accept that that will make people more reluctant to come to the UK? I am talking about entrepreneurs and people whom we actually need to come here and support our economy.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that if we are serious about making London safer—as we all want it to be; we all spend a lot of time here—supporting the use of facial recognition to identify known criminals would make a difference? His party opposes that.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Dowd. I appreciate that guidance. We absolutely need more police, but unfortunately their budget was cut in Scotland last year, which has made their job even harder. I recently wrote to Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat. They track their riders’ every move, and they say that despite knowing where they are all the time, they cannot use their apps to track their speeds and whether they are riding recklessly unless I know the order number for the thing that is being delivered. I find that absolutely incredible. I have, however, been offered a place on the Deliveroo rider training course—it will be interesting to see what that comprises. It is really disappointing that the companies are not taking more ownership of the problem. I approached the Minister for road safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and she confirmed that the Government will launch a national work-related road safety charter. I really hope the food delivery companies engage with it constructively, but I have my doubts that it will change matters on the ground. Recklessness and exploitation of their workers is fundamental to those companies’ business model, and we need to address that. I hope the Government will legislate if the companies do not step up. It was said earlier that the Government must take seriously their powers to manage the import and sale of these illegal bikes, and I agree. I find it absolutely incredible that people can buy them given that, in most of our constituencies, there is nowhere that they can ride them. I hope the Minister will address that point too.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Town and City Centre Safety · Hansard source

  More

  In October last year, I ran a community meeting in partnership with Catriona Munro, who is Labour’s candidate for Holyrood in the Edinburgh South Western constituency. One of the key things that was brought up was the activity of food delivery companies. At the heart of this activity is what some would call a precarious business model, based on precarious work, which essentially exploits these workers and encourages them to drive illegal e-bikes in quite a reckless manner. In November last year, outside my constituency office, the police managed to impound 13 of these e-bikes. Just imagine what they could do if they were fully funded.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We do not have to look to France. This is fundamentally an issue that many families face around balancing their budgets; many of them are having to get second jobs. Perhaps we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, because he has been forced out to get a second job to make ends meet. Perhaps he can give some droplets of experience to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.