Dr Scott Arthur
MP for Edinburgh South West · Labour · United Kingdom
“Some colleagues have questioned the need for this debate. Like others, I welcome the news that we are going to proscribe the IRGC, but online, I have seen people who are basically antisemitic claiming that this is some kind of plot, that Jews are taking over the world, and that they were behind this decision.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly if he is drawing to a conclusion. Of course, the big “no confidence” debate was the 2024 general election. Before reflecting further on defence, can we go back to his enthusiasm for more exploration of oil and gas?”
“I appreciate that the Minister is substituting for another excellent Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); I am sad that she is not here, because she is fantastic.”
“Absolutely. Yesterday I met with activists from Cancer Research UK just outside Parliament, before they came in. Cancer Research UK had around 100 activists there who had been touched by cancer, in all its shapes and forms, and although that big room was full of people who were full of energy, they were just a tiny part of the footprint o…”
“Exactly. In a former life, I was an academic. UKRI does at times engage with academics to fine-tune such questions. UKRI provides funding to universities, if needed, to bring the very best people to the UK either temporarily or on longer-term contracts to help to make a difference in the UK.”
“As I understand it, they plan to start a support group to focus specifically on lobular breast cancer, which will meet for the first time on 11 August. I wish them well in that endeavour and I am wearing my House of Hope badge today.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Dr Scott Arthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 13.
“I thank the Minister for his statement and for introducing some facts to the debate—I can see that some alternative realities have come crashing down. I want to focus on the future and the Minister’s commitment to protecting democratic life in the UK, particularly through the cyber-security measures. He knows that this will rely, at least in part, on the Computer Misuse Act 1990—if my memory serves me right, the 386 Amstrad was then the best computer we could get. As he knows, many people think that that Act fails to distinguish between malicious actors, state or otherwise, and cyber-security professionals working in the public interest, and perhaps the democratic interest. Will he commit to looking at that anomaly?”
“The hon. Member is speaking with great authority from her experience as a magistrate, but she criticises the Bill for having no concrete plans to expand prison capacity. Could she talk about her party’s plans to increase prison capacity, how much they would cost and when that capacity would come on line?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I think we have a duty—all democracies have a duty—to protect democracy from its enemies. I do not doubt that our allies face exactly the same challenges, so I would be interested to know what discussions we have had with our allies about this very challenge. The Minister mentioned that MPs and their offices would get new guidance. Can he commit to a date for that being issued?”
“I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.”
“Is it time to change direction to avoid this happening again—to avoid us taking a stand, demanding a ceasefire and Netanyahu just laughing at us?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I do pray that one day he will come to the Dispatch Box with good news for us, to be frank. In my surgery at Oxgangs library on Saturday, a UK-Palestinian woman came to see me. She brought date cookies, which had been freshly made by her mother. I had hoped to save one for you, Mr Speaker, but it proved not to be possible. She spoke passionately, and she was really concerned about the visit of the Israeli President to the UK. I spoke about what the Government have been doing and actions that I have supported that I believe have saved lives. But with what we have seen in Qatar, I think Netanyahu has made a fool of us, and I fear that he will continue to make a fool of us.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy?”
“I agree with those Members who have raised concerns about the impact that this cyber-attack might have on jobs. It also has an impact on our reputation as a country when two iconic brands basically have to go offline. I do not expect that this will be the last attack on either a retailer or an automotive company, but the risks to automotive companies are particularly acute, because going forward, cars are basically going to be computers on wheels. Customers will be concerned about what attacks mean for their security, but also about what the impact on the automated features within the car means for driver safety. The Minister said that the UK is increasingly a target; is that because of the interest in the UK, or because we are more susceptible?”
“I will end by saying that I welcome the Minister to his place—I know that lots of Ministers are at new desks today, and I welcome that—but this is his chance to start his career with a big bang, grab the headlines and really make a difference, so I look forward to hearing his response.”
“I was going to give a second example, relating to Calvin, who is here on a BNO visa, but I think that others have spoken better than I can about the impact on that group of residents in the UK. However, I will say that I am proud that so many people came from Hong Kong to live in my constituency, and I am always humbled by the contributions that they make, but I am ashamed by what they are facing in these proposals. Whether it is a Hong Kong family or a physiotherapist from Canada, we have to be serious about supporting people who contribute to our economy and our communities. Settlement is about trust, stability and fairness. Extending the pathway does not just damage individual lives; it damages our international credibility, our economy and our ability to recruit the best staff.”
“Physiotherapy is on the shortage occupation list. I feel grateful that Sarah has chosen to live in Edinburgh South West, but if these changes were to go ahead, her route to settlement would be pushed back until 2033. That means that she would be faced with another five years of expensive visa renewals, which we have heard about, and of insecurity and uncertainty. Sarah was clear that, if that happens, she may well think about leaving the UK and settling elsewhere. That would be to the detriment of us all, particularly the people waiting for physiotherapy. Sarah’s is not an isolated case; right across many industries in the UK, workers are facing that uncertainty.”
“It is not just about academics: I have also heard from many constituents, all of whom contribute to Edinburgh, who are deeply worried about these changes, and what they would mean for them, their families, and their futures. I will share two stories to illustrate what I have heard. The first is from Sarah, who came to Scotland from Canada in 2018 to study physiotherapy. She graduated during the pandemic, when she worked in hospital placements at the height of the crisis, facing, let us be honest, unknown risks. Since then, she has stayed and worked in our NHS, one of more than a quarter of a million immigrants working in the NHS across the UK. She has treated patients in some of the toughest circumstances imaginable. She talked about how she supported patients fighting for their lives in intensive care.”
“Before I entered politics, I worked in higher education. Since the proposals regarding indefinite leave to remain were announced, former colleagues across our universities in Edinburgh have been in touch with me, concerned about the impact on both their current staff and the ability to recruit new staff in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made clear, if we are serious about growing our economy, we have to support our universities as much as possible, and ensure that they are able to attract the best minds from around the world. I gently ask the Minister—he is sitting right next to me, so I can say it very gently—are any other western nations making it harder for their universities to attract the best minds from around the world? Of course they are not.”
“It is a delight to serve under you today, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the petition, and I thank all my constituents who signed it. I make my comments in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the need to fix our broken immigration system—the one we inherited from the previous Government—but we have to do that in a way that focuses on measures that work, not ones that make life difficult for all of us. Whether the changes to indefinite leave to remain apply retrospectively is unclear, and that is at the core of what we are discussing today. The Government have indicated that it may be retrospective, but legal precedent suggests that retrospective application could be unlawful, and that may well be challenged in court.”
“Of 5,000 streets in Edinburgh, an estimated 500 were going to be problematic, but within a few weeks of the ban being introduced, we were down to just 20 streets where there were outstanding issues. A year later, there are only around 20 streets where actual parking restrictions will have to be introduced to ensure that traffic can move freely. That has been completely transformative, particularly for people who have visual impairments, for people who are disabled, and for parents and grandparents pushing buggies. It has helped to create a more equal city.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship with a 90-second speech limit, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. In 2023, I met Elaine and her guide dog Tessy and she was able to show me first hand the impact that pavement parking was having on her life. I could see how she was terrified to pass parked cars on the pavement, and where she had to go on the road. She said she was absolutely terrified. I have to say that watching her, I felt absolutely ashamed. I think all of us are here to create a fairer and more equal country, no matter which party we are in. A pavement parking ban is an easy and simple way to make progress. In Edinburgh, I was proud to be part of a group of councillors who introduced a ban.”
“Each time I debate this issue, I fill myself with hope that we will get a positive announcement from the Secretary of State or the Minister. I hope that we get that in this debate.”
“I do not speak for RNIB Scotland or Guide Dogs Scotland but people with visual impairments leading isolated lives are a real concern for them. They want those people to be out working, meeting their friends, shopping and so on. Cars parked on the pavement are a barrier to that happening, so this issue is absolutely core to our wellbeing and to creating a more inclusive society. As the ban came into force in Edinburgh, we got quite a few emails from people who were concerned. The most common question was: “Well, where should I park my car?” I always say, “Look, just don’t park it on the pavement.” I think most people who parked on the pavement knew that it was the wrong thing to do. The ban was actually forcing them in the right direction, and creating a more equal community.”
“Often we are faced with a dilemma between driver convenience and the safety of pedestrians. I think the safety of pedestrians always has to come first. Parking on the pavement is not an alternative to blocking the road to emergency vehicles. You should not be blocking the road to emergency vehicles and you should not be parking on the pavement. Apologies.”
“The Government inherited bond yields higher than those in many other countries. Right now bond yields are going up in Japan, Germany and the United States. Is the Chancellor responsible for all that?”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed bobbing. We all want to be proud of the UK’s asylum system, but because of the mess we inherited from the previous Government, none of us are there right now; that is just a fact. I thank the Home Secretary for the methodical work that she is doing to get a grip of the situation and get the system back on track. It really pains me, though, that some of the people who are behind this mess are now sitting on the Opposition Benches and seeking to weaponise it, rather than apologising to the country. Does the Home Secretary share my hope that extending the Ukrainian visa scheme and the refugee student scheme, bringing Gaza students here and supporting injured Gazan children will provide a chance to show the UK immigration system at its best?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. A few days ago, in my office, I met relatives of people who died on the Suez Maru, which was lost in similar circumstances, with about 550 prisoners of war on it, a great number of whom were machinegunned in the water by members of the imperial Japanese navy. The fight of the relatives I met was not for a memorial; it was for an answer from the Government about why a war crimes trial did not take place. All these years later, it is an emotive subject for them, and one of the relatives was crying in my office. That is a reminder that although years have passed—that ship was lost in 1943—people can still feel raw and emotional. It is right that we remember such losses.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, and particularly for the news that there will be a thorough investigation. I have two quick questions. First, are the reports correct that the previous Government did not meet representatives of the sector for 13 years? I know the Minister said that he had met them recently. Secondly, families will be in crisis when they hear this news, and they will struggle to deal with it. Does he agree that the owner, who I understand is not short of money, has an absolute moral obligation to ensure that those families are supported? Statutory payments are welcome, but the moral obligation has to be made clear.”
“I thank the police for how they have dealt with the violent disorder that we have seen from a minority of people in recent days. I would much rather that the police were investigating the crimes that are allegedly behind the incidents. I also thank the Minister for showing zero tolerance to the minority of people in our asylum system who break the law—it is right that we do that. She mentions that the number of asylum hotels has come down. Has the bill also come down?”
“I congratulate the Secretary of State on the scale of ambition he has shown today. Although there are many issues in the water sector in Scotland—not least the combined sewer overflow discharges into the Water of Leith at Colinton Dell—one thing we understand is that to reduce CSO spills, we have to reduce the amount of rainfall going into our combined pipes, which is done through planning in Scotland. The Cunliffe report makes clear that it is time to enact schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would do the same in England. Will the Secretary of State take that recommendation forward?”
“I welcome this announcement, and I can only speculate about why the Conservatives did not decide to clean up party funding when they were in Government. I want to echo some of the comments about proportional representation. Personally, I feel that it is at the heart of many of the problems the country has faced in recent times. I absolutely accept that proportional representation is not part of the Government’s proposals, but will the Minister keep an open mind and look at how other strong democracies around the world have been able to use PR to both strengthen their democracy and create a more collaborative political culture?”
“Will she also wish them well for the summer holiday, which is under way already in Scotland, and for their coming academic year in primary 5?”
“I thank the Leader of the House for her statement, and for the good humour and patience that she has brought to the Dispatch Box over the last year. Last week Mike and Clare, two climate activists from Edinburgh South West, brought to this place dozens of climate change posters created by children in primary 4 at Bonaly primary school in my constituency. The posters were absolutely fantastic, covering everything from supporting bees and planting trees to encouraging their parents to drive less and perhaps install solar panels. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the children for the leadership they are showing? They are not waiting for us to take action but are demanding that we do so.”
“That is really important work, because fashion designers—I am not sure how many of them we have in the Chamber—can use it when selecting fabrics for their designs, to understand how likely it is that those small fibres will fall off. We know that clothing is not the only problem. Global plastic production is set to triple over the next three decades, as we have heard, but our waste management structures are ill prepared to deal with that looming threat. It is therefore right that we take the plastics treaty seriously.”
“They estimated that the human intake of microplastics from mussel ingestion ranged from 9,000 to 12,000 microplastic items per person per year. Mark was also part of a team that identified microplastics in seagrass in the Deerness Sound area of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It was found adhering to the blades of the seagrass in some cases. Elsewhere in Heriot-Watt University, a small team headed by Dr Lisa Macintyre, an associate professor of textiles at the university’s school of textiles and design in Galashiels in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is also in his place, has overseen painstaking research to co-develop the world’s first visual fibre fragmentation scale.”
“I make my comments in the context of my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. It is on an issue that resonates strongly with many residents in Edinburgh South West—it is not an overstatement to say that I was inundated with emails on it. Plastics are everywhere. As we have already heard, they are in construction, healthcare, clothing and furniture. It is estimated that about 14 million tonnes of microplastics are lying on the ocean floor right now, and the fashion industry is among the biggest sources. My former colleague at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency, Dr Mark Hartl, was part of a team who found microplastics in green mussels sold in traditional seafood markets in Jakarta.”
“I recently spent an afternoon touring one such venture called The Forge, a pop-up community maker space, based in renovated shipping containers on a site in Fountainbridge, next to the canal and just along from my office. It provides tools, facilities and training to people from all walks of life, including students, artists, do-it-yourself enthusiasts and homeless people. When I visited, there was a young man making a hat block. I thought it was for him to store his hat on, but he intended to make a pirate hat for a pirate festival, of all things. I tried to google where the pirate festival was, but it turns out that pirate festivals are quite common, so it could have been almost anywhere.”
“That is clearly not sustainable, but it seems that we have become all too comfortable recycling being a matter of “out of sight, out of mind.” We have to remember that once we lose sight of our waste, in many cases we also lose control of what is happening to it. Many residents write to me about that. Even if we were to develop the processing capacity at home, dealing with plastics will always be a problem so long as our consumption remains high, so a much stronger focus needs to be placed on reuse and developing a circular economy, as we heard earlier, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. In my constituency, I am proud to say that I have several organisations that promote reuse, ranging from sharing libraries to repair and reuse charities.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that it is important to his constituency, because I can remember how people were really concerned about plastic cotton buds getting washed up on Portobello beach. Thankfully, through changes, that is now much rarer, but it is still an issue. In Scotland alone it is estimated that we generate around 300,000 tonnes of plastic packaging items annually and, as of 2021, we were recycling only about 4,500 tonnes of that. Each month, Scotland exports about 100 tonnes of waste to different parts of the UK and right across the world. That is an export that I am not proud of. Poor planning on the part of the Scottish Government means that, by the start of next year, 100 tonnes of waste a day will be moving from Scotland to England to be processed.”
“Some may see that as a compromise that lets major polluters off the hook, but I believe that international co-operation is vital, and similar models have worked well in getting those nations signed up to some kind of baseline target. It would help break the deadlock, and allow high-ambition states like, I hope, the UK to set and hit bolder targets, leading by example. Something is better than nothing. We must make progress on this issue, and a global treaty is essential if we want to protect our planet and the health of future generations.”
“At the UN talks held in South Korea last year, we supported a draft text on legally binding global reductions in plastic production, and on phasing out certain harmful chemicals and single-use plastics. Unfortunately, a consensus could not be reached, largely due to the usual suspects—China and Russia among them—all pushing back against those targets. The negotiations will remain highly contentious as long as those countries, whose economies are heavily reliant on plastic, want to hang on to it. Having read Dr Lindner’s evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this week, I think an inclusive two-tier model could go some way towards resolving those disagreements, if we cannot get those countries to be as bold and ambitious as I hope the UK is.”
“That is why I fully support a deposit return scheme that covers the entirety of the UK; I look forward to its introduction in 2027. That may not be quick enough for some people, and I respect that, but we have to balance the pressing need for change with the economic reality for small businesses, which will have to adapt to the new regulations. As others have said, if hon. Members want to see how not to do this, they should just look to the Scottish Government. Its scheme was an absolute embarrassment. Proper consultation is important, and I think Scotland has shown that. On a global level, I am proud that the Government have fully recognised the importance of tackling plastic pollution through internationally binding treaties.”
“Thank you. As well as the hat block, I also saw tables, chests of drawers and even kitchen utensils being made. We could drastically cut our overreliance on plastics if we had more such initiatives; they empower us to create our own long-lasting alternatives, reusing materials and developing lifelong skills in the process. Another charity in Edinburgh South West—one that is under a little bit of pressure just now—is Four Square’s Edinburgh Furniture Initiative. It largely sells used furniture and household items, and it uses its income—a non-trivial amount of money—to help solve Edinburgh’s housing crisis. It is an absolutely fantastic project. As I noted, the plastic consumption and processing economies operate across borders, making this an issue that requires a truly joined-up approach.”
“For some while, it was going to be much longer than three years, and all of us want it to be much shorter, but that was the compromise we reached—it was like “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. We reached that compromise together, so I urge the hon. Member to respect our negotiations on that issue.”
“That covers amendments 1 and 2. Amendment 5 is about the definition of a rare cancer, which is an aspect of the Bill that I have not spoken about in any great detail, so it is worth touching on here. The Bill sets the definition of a rare cancer in statute and aligns it with the definition of a rare disease, which is a useful simplification. In future, let us hope that some conditions fall out of that “rare” specification and need less emphasis, and let us also hope that people in the Department look at the treatments that are being developed inside and outside the UK. It is right that there should be a bit of flexibility at the edges of what the Department considers a rare cancer. The timeline of the review is three years. Again, we spent a great deal of time talking about that.”
“Member suggested; there is a whole coalition of people who have different opinions about the Bill, and I do not think any one person has a right to change it in that way, including me. That would be hugely disrespectful and a disappointment to that coalition, but I understand the hon. Member’s points. The Minister will go through the amendments in turn, so I will focus on three key ones. The review of orphan drugs was one of the hardest-fought things in the negotiations with the Department and charities, but we found a point that we could all agree on. I appreciate that the hon. Member wants it to go further, and perhaps we could speculate about the outcome and better prepare for it, but it is much awaited by the charities and they are grateful for it. I do not want to speak on their behalf, but that is what I have heard from them.”
“I rise to oppose the amendments, but I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for tabling them, for engaging with the Bill and for our conversation yesterday, which I really appreciated. I understand the stated intent of the proposals, although I am not minded to support them. Over the last 10 months, I have held dozens of meetings with families, survivors, sufferers, charities, clinicians and legal experts, all with the aim of delivering meaningful change in this field. Those meetings were not so that I could tell people about the Bill, but so that those people could shape the Bill. I fear that if we were to pass these amendments, they would upset the delicate balance of hopes and aspirations that underpins the Bill. It is not just about the Minister, as the hon.”
“I regret not inviting him to take part in the Bill Committee—we would have benefited from some of these comments at that stage—but some of the points that have been raised were discussed in Committee. It was a reasonably long discussion; it did not last for hours, but it was not as short as some. I remain committed to working constructively with colleagues as the Bill progresses beyond today—let us hope it gets beyond today—but I respectfully ask, in the strongest possible terms, that these amendments are not pressed. If they are, I hope Members will oppose them.”
“I thank the hon. Member for that question. Of course, the review will not start on day one after passing the Bill. It will take time to get up and running. The existing workload of those staff members will have to be reallocated, and I hope and expect there to be some initial engagement with the sector—both charities and pharmaceutical companies—so a bit of flexibility is required. To be honest, I would love more money to be spent on that review so that we can get more depth and it can have a greater impact. I am sure other hon. Members present would agree. I hope the hon. Member for Christchurch understands my position and recognises the strength of cross-party and sector-wide support that has brought the Bill this far.”
“It sounded exciting, and I was looking forward to getting my picture taken next to it, but it is actually a very ordinary piece of instrumentation. I got my picture taken in the end, but I do not think I used it. It is a fantastic piece of equipment, and it is coupled with a supercomputer. It does what would previously have been a lifetime of analysis in just a few days. It is fantastic that in this House, we have all agreed that Edinburgh University should get a new supercomputer. Analysis that used to take a few days will take just a few hours, moving us closer to finding cures. The United States has shown how investment in this area can stimulate growth through its cancers Act. It would offer a real step change in the UK if we could do the same. I will draw to a conclusion, because I know others want to speak.”
“She said: “Your Bill will make a significant difference, helping tens of thousands who desperately need more research to find a cure.” No pressure, therefore, for me or us in the Chamber today. There is also a strong economic argument for introducing this legislation. By creating the conditions for more rare cancer trials to take place in the UK, we can attract investment, stimulate innovation and create new jobs in research, science and healthcare. This is an opportunity to give British science and institutions a global leadership role in tackling some of the most challenging diseases of our time. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Edinburgh University researchers based in an NHS hospital, the Western general in Edinburgh. I was invited along to see a thing called a robotic microscope.”
“Another helpful charity, Brain Tumour Research, said that the Bill “could significantly improve research and treatment pathways for patients.” Pancreatic Cancer UK, which has been at the core of what we are doing—and, it turns out, has been in correspondence with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)—says that if the Bill “becomes law, it has the potential to improve survival rates for pancreatic cancer and other cancers that have been left behind.” I know the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) wanted to be here today but could not be. Instead, his sister Georgie left a message on my social media. She lives with glioblastoma and is a fantastic campaigner in this field.”
“Lastly, the Bill will trigger a Government review into orphan drugs—I really dislike that phrase; this is about rare conditions—to explore new pathways to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to trial repurposed and innovative treatments for rare cancers. Together, those steps will reduce the barriers to research and attract more trials to the UK, and ultimately lead to faster and fairer access to lifesaving treatments. I am a humble person, and do not want to be accused of overstating the impact of the Bill, so I will take the liberty of quoting others, if Members do not mind. The Brain Tumour Charity, which has been so helpful, says that the Bill will be transformative and help to “improve access to clinical trials for people living with rare and less common cancers”.”
“It will achieve that by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to promote research into rare cancers, including appointing a national specialty lead to co-ordinate efforts across the sector. If anybody doubts the need for that, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden can talk about what has been happening in recent years. The Bill will also increase patient access to clinical trials by strengthening and streamlining the Be Part of Research registry and building a central database of willing patients to help researchers to find trial participants more easily. That is key to attracting trials to the UK.”
“For far too long, rare cancer patients have been left behind—as medical science makes significant progress in many other complex fields, we have not seen enough progress in this one—but they feel this piece of legislation could mark a meaningful shift for many and turn out to be life-altering, perhaps even lifesaving, for some. There is one statistic that I often mention: rare cancers are not really rare, as they account for 47% of all cancer diagnoses in the UK each year. That equates to 180,000 people. If you are one of those 47%, two things are true: you are more likely to face outdated treatments and you are more likely to die. The Bill is about justice and creating a more level playing field for those patients and their families.”