Scott Arthur MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I know the right hon. Gentleman is passionate about this subject, but can he be clear about his concerns about the detail of the regulations and what difference they will actually make to businesses? People are speaking in very general terms, but can he be specific about the detail of the legislation and what difference it will actually make? What would the right hon. Gentleman have the Government negotiate, if they could?

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Vickers, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the debate and engaged with the petitioners. The UK’s breast screening programme is one of the greatest successes of our NHS. In Scotland, around 130 lives are saved each year through screening alone. The programme provides critical early diagnoses, improving treatment options and patient outcomes. Even in the worst cases, early diagnosis can give women precious extra time with their family and friends. However, the petition asks whether the current programme is enough. The screening used for those between the ages of 50 and 71 does not account for the fact that one in six people diagnosed with breast cancer each year are below the age of 50. Many more are diagnosed later, and tragically, diagnoses often come too late. Studies from the USA show that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer when they are under 40 are 40% more likely to die from their cancer, and in the UK, breast cancer is the leading killer of women between the ages of 29 and 40. Worse still, the charity CoppaFeel! tells us that when women present to a healthcare professional with breast cancer symptoms, they are “routinely dismissed”—no doubt as menopausal, as often happens to women—creating missed opportunities for treatment. Sadly, those missed opportunities will only increase with the rate of breast cancer in young women, which, as we have heard, is already increasing. Although rates of breast cancer are increasing in all age groups, the incidence rates in younger women are growing faster than the rates in older women. Those facts should lead us to ask whether it is time to reconsider our current approach to screening. I recognise that the petition’s proposal to transition to annual screening and to lower the screening age could present significant challenges for the NHS. Annual testing would require significant additional resources and patient buy-in, and younger women’s breasts are often denser and therefore harder to scan, which throws up more anxiety-inducing false positives. However, those challenges should not discourage us from doing more to support these women. Innovations such as the seven-minute risk assessments proposed by CoppaFeel! could help us to improve and expand targeted screening to younger women with a predisposition to breast cancer, and increased resources and publicity will drive up uptake among all women. To close, I want to recognise the work of CoppaFeel! and Asda, as well as the House of Hope in my constituency. The report CoppaFeel! published on the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on younger patients has informed many hon. Members in this debate, and I pay tribute to its partnership with Asda, in their Tickled Pink campaign. In Edinburgh South West last year, Asda Chesser donated £2,700 to the House of Hope in Gorgie. The House of Hope is Scotland’s first bespoke support centre for those living with cancer. It provides care rather than treatment, and supports women and their families. The centre provides life-enhancing support every day, and the impact it has had in just its first year of operation cannot be understated. The House of Hope would not be what it is without the commitment of its founder, Lisa Fleming, who, since her diagnosis at age 33, has been a tireless advocate for the cancer community. I am proud to call her my constituent. This morning, she and her mother—both are formidable—were on my Facebook page, trying to influence this debate. When I met her mother a week or two ago, I was reminded that when a young woman gets breast cancer, her loved ones, including her children and parents, are affected by it. That wider economic impact should be taken into account in our decision making. It is through work like Lisa’s and, I hope, a renewed commitment from the Minister to improve our screening processes that we can continue to take steps against this terrible disease. I feel obliged to put a question to the Minister, and I hope she will promise me this. The next time she visits Edinburgh, will she stop her ministerial limousine at the House of Hope and pay Lisa a visit?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I apologise for giving you late notice of my intention to speak. I start by acknowledging that although I am not a fan of PR, it is right that all of us MPs do a great job representing every one of our constituents, whether they voted for us or not. In Scotland, we have three elections over each five-year period. Two of them use PR and one, the general election, uses first past the post. I want to talk about the single transferable vote system that we use for local authority elections in Scotland, and my lived experience of it as a councillor. I was elected via the STV system back in 2017. I came second out of three councillors who were elected, and was elected thanks to transfers from Green voters. Even though some transfers also came from elsewhere, it was the Green voters who got me across the line, so I always felt an obligation to make sure that those few people were very well represented. I worked alongside two Conservatives in the ward over that three-year period. The council had 63 councillors in total. An SNP-led administration was formed, supported by Labour in a coalition, but it tended to be Green votes that got things across the line, so those three parties tended to work together. I have to say that the Greens back then were a bit more sensible than they sometimes are today. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) is not offended by that. I must pay tribute to my ward colleague Jason Rust, who is still a councillor in the Colinton, Oxgangs and Fairmilehead ward. He has been there for a long time and he is a fantastic, hard-working councillor—despite being a Tory. In 2022, I stood for re-election, and on that occasion I managed to come first under the STV system, which was a huge privilege and honour. The SNP managed to take one of the Conservative seats. The SNP candidates’ tricky strategy was that they went around looking for people who were voting for me and asked whether they would give them their second votes. I thought that was quite sneaky, but it got the party across the line. That is evidence that PR leads to a different way of campaigning, in that people look for alignment between parties during the election, not just afterwards. The formation of the council was a bit trickier in 2022: 63 councillors were elected, and only 13 were Labour councillors. However, Labour managed to run the city, and is still running it, as a minority administration—if my memory serves me right, there are now 12 Labour councillors out of 63—largely because, given the tensions among the other parties, they find ways to support us from time to time. Again, that is a different kind of politics. I convened the transport committee from ’22 up until I was unexpectedly elected as an MP. On my committee were two Labour, two Green, two Tory, two Lib Dem and three SNP councillors, all elected via the STV system. Each report we had to pass meant creating an individual coalition of votes. By and large, that meant that the other parties, if they were to support my proposals to the committee, wanted something added or taken away. Reflecting on that after two years, I would say that every deal I did with the other parties made what we were proposing better. Ultimately, I was elected only by a minority of people, even in the STV system; the other councillors were elected by people as well, and it was important that their views were taken on board. The outcome was fairer, and it created a better kind of politics in the council. I am not saying that there were not disagreements—if I am honest, there was sometimes was quite bad behaviour from councillors—but PR works in Scotland. The results in England show the brutal way in which first past the post treats council elections—it looked like cavemen trying to start politics up and get democracy working. Some of the results were anomalous, and we have to reflect on that. PR for general elections would have to come via a manifesto commitment and a referendum—a manifesto commitment would not be enough. I support the call for a national commission, but I do not think there is any appetite among the public for another referendum on anything. The APPG for fair elections recently had a meeting with John Curtice. He said there was a consensus that the only way to move the UK to PR in a general election would be if a coalition was formed and one of the partners demanded PR in return for the stability of the coalition. Of course, we saw that in the past, in the alternative vote referendum, which I think it is fair to say was disastrous. We heard the other day that the Lib Dems held up the submarine-building programme. The failure to deliver PR back then is a real issue, and we should reflect on it. Although there is a huge hurdle to installing PR for general elections, we could move much faster on council elections in England. We could consult and then deliver. I have two final points—

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Elections: First Past the Post · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise; I have not been looking at the clock. First, we are the only country in Europe that uses first past the post, and we should reflect on why that is. Secondly, in Scotland we use the d’Hondt—or Jefferson—system for PR for the second votes. Nobody really understands how that works, and we have to be careful about that. We have to be able to communicate how the result has been reached. I apologise for overrunning, Mr Turner.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, this is not a debate about whether or not we increase defence spending; it is a debate about how much we increase it by. The hon. Gentleman has talked about our standing with our allies, which is incredibly important. What did our allies think when his Government were cutting defence? Can he tell us?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly. Baroness Cass is a respected expert in this field, and she made recommendations that were broadly accepted. We should be using science as a basis for decision making, not rejecting her findings purely on the basis of politics. Let me go back to what I said at the start: doing nothing will lead to our young people being harmed. That is an incredibly important point. We cannot rely on debates in this place to decide how and when puberty blockers should be used. Rather, we should be relying on thorough scientific research, carried out in proper trial conditions and led by medical experts. We heard earlier the Health Secretary explaining some of the detail around protections for our young people. Baroness Cass is also clear that more children will be harmed by preventing the trial than by allowing one to go ahead. That is an incredibly important point. Preventing a trial drives desperate children to look online or internationally for unregulated hormones or hormone suppressants. That leads young people to unsafe puberty blockers or to start taking hormones such as testosterone at a much earlier stage, which are irreversible once they start to take hold. We can prevent that by providing the properly regulated use of puberty blockers in the UK via this trial. The trial will provide understanding and allow clinicians to effectively guide Government on our next step. It is the right and necessary thing to do for the Government, clinicians and young people. We need to take better care of our young people, and we need to do that via a clinical trial. Let me say again that doing nothing might seem like the easy thing to do, but it will come with consequences. I really hope that we hear more from Opposition Members about what they think the consequences of doing nothing will be for the health and wellbeing of our young people, because we have not heard that.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady knows that she is one of my favourite Tories—I think I have said that before. She has quoted Baroness Cass many times. Of course, Baroness Cass thinks this trial should go ahead, because the benefits outweigh the costs. Why is Baroness Cass wrong and the hon. Lady right?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I am part of the liberal working class. This debate is not about the Tavistock clinic. The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted Baroness Cass, but one thing he has not said is that she recommended that the clinical trial go ahead. She said recently that she supports the trial because she thinks there will be real benefits to it. Rather than talking about Tavistock, will he address what Baroness Cass, who he quotes extensively, thinks about this trial that we are debating?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Not too much.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  By giving way a second time, the hon. Lady shows why she is my favourite Tory. Does Baroness Cass not say that she has met young people who have been self-medicating with testosterone, which is irreversible? That is one of the problems that we are trying to address through this trial. It is about protecting young people so that they are not going down their own medical pathway, but are listening to medical advice and are well supported in a coherent framework.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I will, because I know the hon. Gentleman is keen to speak.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that fantastic point. Until I was unexpectedly elected, I was an academic, and what I learned was never to focus on a single study when doing research, because a single study is basically an anecdote. We have to look at the breadth of the research. If I may say so, we see exactly the same in the climate change debate—the broad spectrum of science supports the argument for climate change, but there are always one or two contrary views. Those views are welcome, but we do not base our view on just one study; we look at the breadth of the research.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an interesting debate so far and I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who has worked so much in this area. We should all acknowledge that this is not an easy issue. The reason why I wanted to speak in the debate is that back when I was trying to get elected in 2024, I met the mother of a young trans woman. She told me about how her daughter really started to come to terms with who she was when she was entering puberty, but that led her to stop eating because she did not want to go into puberty. Her condition got so bad that she had to be taken to hospital, and she almost died. We should not view this as a lifestyle choice, and we should not think that doing nothing comes with no consequences. I know that not all cases are the same, but the reality is that doing nothing is not the answer. We do have to answer these questions. I welcome the news this week that the Pathways trial is set to go ahead. Since the Government announced an indefinite pause on the prescription of puberty blockers last year, both young people and clinicians have been stuck in limbo. This uncertainty has helped no one—not the young people who are desperate for medical support, nor the researchers who need to gather data to fully understand the effects of these drugs. However, it is right that this renewed permission for a trial is based on clinical judgment, not political discourse. We should be led by science, not politics, where the health of our young people is concerned. King’s College London and the MHRA have worked extensively to propose a safe and ethical trial, increasing safeguards since March and continuing dialogue with the Health Research Authority. I understand the concerns around the trial, and I think we all should. We all want to ensure the safety of the children involved, but it is time we find a way forward that balances the safety of the young people involved and the opportunity to enhance the care that we provide for children struggling with their gender identity. Far too often, that care is lacking. Many Conservative Members have consistently called for the full implementation of the Cass review. Baroness Cass was quoted multiple times by the shadow Minister in her introduction to this debate, yet the Conservatives have called this debate to oppose the trial, despite it being one of Baroness Cass’s recommendations. Why are the Conservatives not willing to listen to Baroness Cass on that single issue? In her original review in 2024, Baroness Cass made it clear that research into puberty blockers was necessary. Just this week, she has said that the trial to examine the risks and benefits of puberty blockers will reduce harm, not cause it. In fact, she goes further and tells us that the debate around the risks of puberty blockers has been exaggerated—we have seen some of that today, if we are all honest. She is absolutely right on this point.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  She has learned since then, and of course she has a fantastic Labour candidate to vote for. Ten years on, it feels like this is the ideal time to have this debate, because of where the country finds itself. I mean that both in a positive and hopeful way and in quite a depressing way. I find myself getting quite depressed by the situation the country finds itself in. This debate is about Jo’s legacy, and in my office I am incredibly lucky to have a small part of Jo’s legacy in Evie, an intern who works for us one day per week. She is still a student, but she is also part of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, which is fantastic. She is always telling us about the amazing women she meets on that programme, without realising that she is actually one of them. When she found out about the debate, she was keen to write my speech. This is her speech, though hon. Members will be glad to hear that I will not do a Yorkshire accent. Today—almost 10 years on from the tragedy in which Jo’s life was senselessly taken—acts as a reminder of the continued fight we face against violence towards women and girls. The testimony of some women Members of the House reminds us of the responsibility we all have to tackle that vile hatred. I have been quite reflective about that as the debate has continued. Further, no man or woman in any public office should ever fear for their safety—and neither should their family—for speaking up for what they believe in. We are gathered here today, however, to remember much more than that tragic day; we are here to remember the incredible legacy that Jo left behind. As an ardently committed MP, Jo brought an enthusiasm and commitment to public service that we should all aspire to. She was loved by her family, her constituents and all those who had the pleasure of meeting her during her time in Parliament. We have heard that amply: hon. Members’ moving words have been testament to that. Beyond Jo’s exceptional campaigning inside and outside this place, her unwavering commitment to confronting those who seek to divide us defined so much of her leadership—she was a leader in this place. Whether through her advocacy on the Syrian conflict or her efforts to combat racial hatred, Jo was steadfast in amplifying the voices of those most in need of being heard and, above all, in leading with compassion. I do not really know what she would make of the rhetoric we hear sometimes in this place. I am really grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for the points he made about overseas aid. When I was reading about Jo last night on Wikipedia, I drew the conclusion that she would be a little bit concerned about the cut. Because I did not know her, I did not want to put words in her mouth, but the right hon. Gentleman did know her, so I am really glad that he made that point. I was visiting Balerno high school last week, and the young people there raised that cut with me. I am guilty of saying to them that I was not happy with it, but there has not been too much of a pushback against it in this place. However, in reflecting on that today, I think that is perhaps because I have not been pushing back enough on it. There is a lesson there. Both internationally, through her work with Oxfam and Amnesty International, and in Parliament, where she helped to establish the friends of Syria APPG, Jo made a profound impact that continues to resonate today. It is deeply moving that her values of co-operation, justice and humanitarianism live on through the Jo Cox Foundation, which we have heard about. Its vital work carries forward Jo’s vision of a fairer and more united world—one in which there is no place for hatred. The Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme empowers the next generation of women leaders across the Labour movement, ensuring that Jo’s astounding commitment to public service continues to shape the future of the party. I started off by talking about Evie, who is a real leader in her office. She is a very modest person, but she has shown leadership outside the office, such as in the students’ union at Edinburgh University. She has also just been elected as the vice-chair of Scottish Labour Students, which is fantastic. Eleven years ago, Jo said in this Chamber that we have “far more in common than that which divides us.” —[ Official Report , 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.] Those words are more important than ever, and we must hold Jo’s message close to our hearts. It is fitting that we hold this debate in her honour, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to continue to stand against the hatred and division that tragically took her life. In doing so, we keep faith with Jo’s belief in a kinder and more united society. One of the most powerful elements of this debate is the fact that we are all so concerned about the tensions, if I can put it that way, in communities right across the UK. We are all united in trying to tackle them. On that positive and hopeful note, I will finish.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in this fantastic debate. It was great to hear the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). The words were fantastic, but the emotion and the pride in particular she has for her sister is amazing. Ten years on from what happened, which was so awful, it is remarkable to hear so much emotion in what many have been saying. I did not know Jo, but it is great to learn so much more about her—I have to say, the debate has been much better than reading the Wikipedia page last night. All of us can remember the feeling of shock when it happened. I remember that Kezia Dugdale hastily organised a vigil in Edinburgh, in what has turned out to be my constituency, to which I took along my son and my daughter. Just a few weeks before, my daughter had voted in the Holyrood election, and I think she took the “more in common” message too far: at the vigil she told me that she had voted for the Conservative party in the election.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  One of my favourite schools in my constituency is Balerno high school, so it was great to visit last week and celebrate it getting gold status as a UNICEF rights respecting school. This is the second time that the young people at the school have won this award, and they were absolutely delighted—so much so that they shared some baking with me. At a time when tensions are so high in communities across the UK, our schools are doing fantastic work to create a more inclusive, respectful society. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time we had a debate in this House about the role of the rights respecting schools award programme in creating a more inclusive society, both to celebrate its successes and understand how we can build on them?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response—I am sure she is working hard to resolve this issue. As the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) explained, a pause was introduced. That was welcomed by charities such as Sarcoma UK, which asked for that pause to be made permanent. If the Minister is working hard to get the Treasury to understand the impact that the VAT charge is having on patients, will she invite a Treasury Minister to meet charities such as Sarcoma UK to hear first hand about the impact of charging VAT?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to have hundreds of constituents working in the defence sector in Edinburgh South West, and they tell me that they have never been busier. The DIP will provide them with security, so that they know they can pay their mortgages and plan for their kids to go to university. I welcome that the DIP will be published soon. People want to know that if we publish it now, we are taking onboard everything we have learnt from Ukraine and, more importantly, Iran—there are real lessons to be learned from that conflict. The Minister also mentioned that on the watch of the previous procurement Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), 47 of 49 projects were neither on time nor on budget. Does he know what happened to that Minister?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When we previously discussed that point, I made this same observation: when we think about privatisation, we tend to think of the rolling stock companies. However, we should not forget that originally there was a privatised rail company, Network Rail, and that it cost the lives of over 40 people in the space of three years. Saying that there were some problems with privatisation really does gloss over that. We have moved from a situation where people felt it was unsafe to travel on the railways to now having one of the safest railways in the world. We should be grateful for that.