NHS Breast Screening

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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?

Puberty Blockers

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point, and I will come to the data linkage study shortly. What we do know from the Cass review is that the vast majority of children who went on to puberty blockers in adolescence went on to receive cross-sex hormones, which are known to have permanent effects.

One fact that is crucially important is that it is not possible for clinicians to confidently determine which children with gender incongruence will persist with the trans identity into adulthood, and which will not. How can the clinicians possibly know that they are not injecting potentially dangerous drugs into children whose incongruence will resolve itself? The answer is that they cannot. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is aware of new evidence allowing clinicians to work out confidently which children will persist with the trans identity at 11 and which will not? We need to think about the risk involved in the treatment, and whether it is worth the benefits that they will purportedly receive.

The trial researchers suggest that they will take a wide approach to looking at potential benefits, that they will look at quality of life and body satisfaction, and that there must be a reasonable prospect of benefit; but how can they know whether there is a reasonable prospect of benefit when they do not know whether or not the condition will persist? Some have suggested that giving puberty blockers will help the few adults who retain their trans identity into adulthood to pass as the opposite sex. Does the Secretary of State think that the long-term damage to many is worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 specify that “anticipated benefits” must justify the risk. This is an ethical rather than a medical question. Does the Secretary of State think that the benefits justify the risk?

I regret that we have ended up discussing the details of a clinical trial in the Chamber—the reality is that things should be done impartially by scientists in most cases—but with this topic we have seen the quashing of open debate, which is why we have ended up where we are.

I will move on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). Even if the Secretary of State thinks the principle of the trial is right, he must surely agree that it is unnecessary and unethically broad. For example, if someone was designing a trial to treat children with a specific form of cancer, the children who would be entered into the trial would have that specific form of cancer. We would not include children with any disease, because that would make the results unreliable in terms of benefit to the target group and children would be unnecessarily put at risk of receiving experimental drugs that they did not need.

The same applies to this trial. The Cass report tells us that many of the children in the proposed trial will get better on their own. The Secretary of State said yesterday that

“we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]

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

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?

[Dr Johnson]

Well, one of the things with doctors is that if you ask two doctors, you might get two different opinions. I completely respect Baroness Cass. She has been president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, of which I am a member, and she has done great work on the report that we commissioned in the last Parliament. I know she is concerned that people may obtain these drugs illegally if they are not provided, but I do not share that concern. Personally, I think the important thing is whether the people obtaining such drugs legally are using them in a way that is safe, and I am not convinced that that is the case.

[Dr Arthur]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Owen]

I know that further details will be coming from the Secretary of State as to what a marker of success is, but I think we have to ask ourselves what a marker of success is for the individuals and families. For some, staying in their sex from birth may look like success. For others, that will not be the case. This is very much on the individual.

[Dr Arthur]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Owen]

I will not; I am going to make some progress, as I have been duly told to do.

The treatment of premature sexual maturity, or precocious puberty, in children—this is for children—uses puberty blockers now. The professors reported to our Committee that puberty blockers are

“recognised as a reversible treatment.”

Professor Butler added that we know

“from follow-up studies with children who have received it for precocious puberty that there are no ill health effects in the long term nor are there any negative effects on fertility recovery.”

Professor Grossman pointed to a “huge amount of evidence” from Harvard University highlighting successful treatment and outcomes for girls prescribed puberty blockers for premature sexual maturity

“in terms of fertility and their subsequent life.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Quigley]

I will not, I am afraid—I did warn you, although I do like the hon. Gentleman very much.

[Dr Arthur]

Not too much.

[Richard Quigley]

Not enough to give way.

If we cannot trust Dr Hilary Cass, the author of a report that the Conservative party itself has endorsed, when she says she is

“absolutely convinced that more children will be harmed if we don’t do the trial than if we do,”

who exactly are we prepared to trust? Do we follow the evidence, the clinicians and the science, or do we retreat into denial, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that trans people do not exist and have never existed? The process the Government have chosen to follow is not reckless; it is rigorous. The MHRA and King’s College London have undertaken detailed scientific scrutiny, and a revised protocol has been agreed that meets the highest regulatory and ethical standards. That is exactly what responsible, evidence-led policymaking looks like.

It is up to us to decide what kind of Parliament we want to be: one that confronts complex and sensitive issues with care, compassion and evidence, or one that turns away, leaving vulnerable young people to navigate these challenges alone and in the shadows. For me, the choice is clear: we owe it to those young people not to look away, not to inflame and not to exploit, but to act, guided by science, led by compassion and grounded in responsibility. I am once again proud to be part of a Government who are doing just that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Conservative Government commissioned the Cass review. In their 2024 manifesto, the Conservatives committed to implement the review in full, which would include a trial. However, as my hon. Friend is saying, they now propose in this motion to stop the trial. Is that not proof that we actually need to have a trial? We need to take the party politics out of this matter, stop politicians from being the lead commentators and put it in the hands of the families and the clinicians.

[Dr Arthur]

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.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Arthur]

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

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned the recently published studies in Finland. Does the hon. Gentleman not think there is any merit in waiting to see what the Finnish tests and trials throw up? We could then see what we could learn from them, rather than replicating or duplicating them here. International science should surely be respected.

[Dr Arthur]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The journey from childhood to adulthood is challenging for many, difficult for some, and tortuous for a few. Through that journey, the support of older people, who are often parents, loved ones, people who care, is critically important. For those who suffer from gender dysphoria, that journey is all the more challenging. Many people—perhaps all of us in this Chamber—will have struggled with the emerging sexuality that is part of the journey to adulthood, but most people who suffer from dysphoria cope with it as they go through puberty. Indeed, the evidence—and there has been much talk of evidence in this debate—shows that medical intervention in those cases would not only be unnecessary but profoundly damaging.

Yet at the Tavistock clinic, the horrors of which I first highlighted in 2019, thousands of children were prescribed life-altering drugs. Indeed, it is more shocking still: more than 70 children aged three and four were sent to that clinic, and 382 children aged six and under were referred. The Government are fond, now, of speaking about the Cass review commissioned by. the previous Government, but the review was not welcomed by the Minister and the trans lobby. When it was commissioned, it was regarded with horror by those who presumably now support this trial.

The Cass review found that doctors must be extremely cautious about giving trans drugs to under-18s—not 11, 12 or 13-year-olds, but people under 18. It found that doctors must be able to

“refer to the longer-term benefits and risks”

of treatment options; that young children should have therapy before they are allowed to socially transition; that many parents expressed concern about their child being socially transitioned and affirmed in their expressed gender without parental involvement; that too many decisions about changing gender have been rushed, with too little consideration given to whether children might regret their actions later in life; and that childhood trauma, neglect and abuse feature heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender change.

As many as two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence. Those are the vulnerable children who went to the Tavistock clinic, which was closed after pressure from those who understood the horrors that took place there. When it was opened, of course—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a moment, when I have made an attack on the liberal bourgeoisie, which the hon. Gentleman might want to hear. When the Tavistock clinic was opened, it was seen as an emblem of progress by the liberal bourgeoisie. Now, of course, we know that it was the embodiment of wickedness. On that note, I give way to him.

[Dr Arthur]

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?

[Sir John Hayes]

Baroness Cass certainly wanted to gather more evidence. The evidence we have shows the damage that puberty blockers can do. We know that the substantial science suggests that they affect bone maturation, cerebral capacity and, of course, fertility. It is certain that there is no compelling evidence that puberty blockers have a beneficial effect. That is why she sought more evidence, as she concluded that there was no compelling evidence that they have a beneficial effect.

Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s service as a clinician, and she is right to say that, at times, for patients facing such situations, compassionate use schemes are a glimmer of hope, but I think the rest of her comments were ill deserved. I understand the desire of the Opposition to attack a new Secretary of State because he was in the Treasury, but I will move on to the actual issues, because patients care about this. The rules had been in place for a long time when this Government took office, and we have not changed them. We have inherited this system, and we are looking at how we can improve it.

The previous Government could have abolished VAT on such medicines, but they chose not to do so. What is more, since we have been in office, we have struck a deal with the USA that not only guarantees 0% on pharmaceutical tariffs, but changes the old formula that we use for medicines. For the first time in 20 years, the Government are spending more to ensure that our patients are first in the queue for innovative medicines. The previous Government could also have raised the threshold, but they chose not to do so. Now, for example, patients facing Duchenne muscular dystrophy, children as young as 12 who need a brain cancer drug, or those who have a type of rare and aggressive stomach cancer, are being treated.

We recognise the importance of the UK remaining a leading location for life sciences, investment and innovation. That is precisely why we are engaging with industry and partners across the Government to understand and address concerns, including the issue of VAT payable on donated medicines. In considering a way forward, it is important to safeguard the robust and fair system by which routine access to medicines commissioned by the NHS is determined. A range of options are being considered. No decisions have been made at this stage, and I will not pre-empt any.

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

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?

[Karin Smyth]

I commend my hon. Friend’s work in this area on behalf of patients. As I said, no decisions have been made and we are continuing to work on this issue. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is with me on the Front Bench and will be happy to keep engaging with all interested parties.

Neuroendocrine Cancer

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this vital issue to the House. The term neuroendocrine cancer may not be familiar to many, but tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom have had to educate themselves after receiving a diagnosis. As with any rare cancer, this is often an uphill struggle marked by delays, misdiagnosis and a persistent struggle for visibility in our healthcare system.

Hon. Members, possibly including the Minister, will have heard me make this point before: a cancer being considered rare does not stop it from impacting many thousands of people right across the UK. Indeed, about 6,000 people are diagnosed with neuroendocrine cancer each year in the UK, which works out at roughly one person every 90 minutes. Today, more than 36,000 people in the UK are living with the condition. To put that into perspective, it is now more prevalent than stomach or pancreatic cancer. The rate of growth is incredibly alarming. Between 1995 and 2018, the incidence of neuroendocrine cancer increased by a staggering 371%. This is not a niche health concern; it is a rapidly growing challenge that our NHS must be equipped to meet.

Statistics can often feel abstract in the Chamber, which is why I want to share the story of a meeting I recently held with three neuroendocrine cancer patients, Liz, Carolyn and Craig, at my office in Fountainbridge in Edinburgh South West. Their stories were both moving and illuminating. We have just been talking about modernising the House of Commons. Given that that meeting took place just four weeks ago, I find it incredible that in four weeks I can meet someone, request a debate and then have that debate, with my favourite Minister answering my questions—it restores my faith in democracy.

Craig, whom I met that day, is in the unique and challenging position of being both a professional advocate and a patient himself. He and the others I met expressed immense gratitude for the care they eventually received, describing it as nothing short of fantastic once they were in the right hands. However, they also spoke about the exhausting battle it took to access specialists who properly understood their condition. They described a system where specialist doctors and centres of excellence are too often hidden behind a wall of referral delays and low clinical awareness. That is particularly in evidence in Scotland, where patients currently face the worst waiting times since records began, but it is also true—albeit possibly to a lesser extent—in our health systems south of the border and in Wales and Northern Ireland.

One of the most powerful parts of our conversation centred on a symptom that is often difficult to discuss yet utterly debilitating: the frequent and urgent need to access a toilet. This is not a minor inconvenience but a symptom that robs people of their autonomy and their dignity. They spoke of how that invisible burden prevents many patients from working, from attending social events and even from leaving their homes for long periods of time. It is a barrier to a normal, fulfilling life.

They also brought a message of hope regarding the drug telotristat. They described how that treatment has quite literally given them back their lives. By managing the symptoms and stopping the cycle of incontinence, the drug has allowed them to return to work, to contribute to their communities, to pay their taxes—that is quite important—and, most importantly, to enjoy a fulfilling family life. This is a clear example of where the right medication does not just treat a disease but restores a person’s dignity and their place in society. It is a powerful reminder that when we invest in the right treatments and pathways, the system burden is reduced because patients are empowered to live independently.

Despite those successes, the single biggest driver of poor outcomes remains the time it takes to get the initial diagnosis. At a meeting I attended at the Royal College of General Practitioners in December, bringing together UK-based healthcare professionals involved in trials, patient care and leading research into neuroendocrine cancer, I heard that, on average, it takes four-and-a-half years for a patient with a tumour to be correctly diagnosed. During that time, the average patient visits their GP 11 times.

Because the cancers can occur anywhere in the body and the symptoms are often non-specific, they are frequently dismissed as more common conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, the menopause or anxiety. I hope somebody somewhere is taking a list of all the conditions that get confused with menopause, because I think it is quite a long one. Many patients, including the three who came to visit my office, look perfectly well, even while harbouring the disease. The consequences are severe, however. Over half of all patients are diagnosed at stage 3 or 4, when treatment options are more limited and the cost to the NHS is significantly higher. Neuroendocrine Cancer UK estimates that it costs between £200,000 and £300,000 more per patient when treating at a later stage rather than at an early one.

Currently, the UK has 13 accredited centres of excellence, including a specialist team in Edinburgh and an accredited centre in Glasgow. Those hubs deliver multidisciplinary, evidence-based care that is proven to improve survival rates—yet access remains a postcode lottery. Whether a patient is in rural Scotland or in a coastal town in England, the quality of care they receive should not depend on whether their local hospital happens to have a neuroendocrine lead. In Scotland we see a stark divide between our urban hubs and our rural communities, whereas in England the access issue is more related to the divergent priorities of different cancer alliances. In both cases, patients suffer because we do not have a standardised diagnostic pathway for everyone.

The closest we have to a standardised service, which all neuroendocrine patients can access, is the one that is offered by Neuroendocrine Cancer UK. It provides a critical safety net, offering helplines, counselling and peer support, and it regularly steps up to fund the small-scale, early-stage studies or trials that are needed to get research off the ground. It is sobering that 95% of Neuroendocrine Cancer UK’s income comes from community generosity. It delivers system-critical services that support the NHS, yet it does so with almost no statutory resourcing.

In closing, I ask the Minister to address five specific priority areas. The first is clinical awareness. May we embed neuroendocrine cancer into primary care training and early diagnosis initiatives to stop these patients being lost in the system for years, perhaps reducing the number of GP appointments needed before a diagnosis?

The second area is clear pathways. As I mentioned previously, we need to tackle the postcode lottery when it comes to treatment, and the only way to do that is through a nationally recognised diagnostic and referral pathway to centres of excellence. Will that be considered?

The third area is the guidance gap. Currently, the NG12 guidance is critical to cancer diagnoses in England and Wales. Neuroendocrine cancer is not included in that guidance. May we review whether there could be a way to include it?

The fourth area is data and visibility. Neuroendocrine-specific cancer data is not routinely published. We need that to accurately track the incredible rate at which cases are rising and our response to that. May we also ensure that more data is published more regularly?

The fifth area is research equity. The issue of funding for research into rare cancers was one of the key asks that charities raised with me when I was consulting on my Bill, which is now the Rare Cancers Act 2026. What more can we do to ensure that the Government are using all the mechanisms at their disposal to stimulate research in this rare cancer and all the others that currently fall through the cracks of major funding streams?

In summary, earlier recognition, clearer routes to specialist care and access to life-changing drugs have the protentional to transform outcomes. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to make that a reality.

Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I believe that a trial for puberty blockers is necessary, and I am hopeful that the issues raised between the MHRA and King’s College can be resolved to allow the PATHWAYS trial to go ahead. If not, I hope an alternative trial can be proposed. I believe that if we accept that trans people exist and have rights, which I think—or at least hope—everyone here does, such trials are a natural consequence.

I understand the concerns the people here and outside this place have about the long-term medical impacts of puberty blockers. That is why we should act cautiously and it is why a trial is needed. We cannot possibly understand the short or long-term impacts without studying puberty blockers properly. The PATHWAYS trial came about because of a lack of conclusive evidence on the use of those drugs. The answer is not to allow their legal use again, but to undertake a trial into their benefits and consequences.

Not long ago in my constituency, I met the parents of a trans woman. Their daughter struggled significantly with her mental health during her teenage years. At one point, she was hospitalised due to complications from a severe eating disorder, which was driven by her decision to reduce her calorie intake because she thought that would delay puberty. Her parents have told me that they believe a big cause of her issues was her inability to express her true gender identity. They have no doubt that puberty blockers would have saved her from some of the anguish that she has experienced. While I know life is not always easy for her, my constituent’s daughter has since medically and socially transitioned; she lives openly as a woman and is happier as a result.

That story shows the profound impact that a struggle with gender identity can have on a young person. It is offensive to talk about young people simply needing love, to talk about trials being experiments, or to suggest that taking part would be an impulsive decision by anyone. People talk about trying to moderate language; we have a duty to bring people together on this topic, not create division.

Eating Disorders Awareness Week

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

You will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for the way she introduced the debate and for her leadership of the APPG on eating disorders. I join her in thanking Hope Virgo for all the work that she does. In many ways, eating disorders can be a hidden condition—even a secretive condition—but Hope really does give the topic the publicity that otherwise it would not get. Hope has been through a lot, and I would not wish what she has been through on anyone, but we are lucky that she is the campaigner she is.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is also worth mentioning the many people who have come forward to bravely tell their stories, raise awareness and take away the stigma. We know how much courage it takes to come forward. I want to collectively thank everybody who does that. We need more people to come forward and talk about their experiences, but I thank everybody who has come forward.

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. I do not attend the APPG as much as I should, but when I do people tell amazingly personal stories about what has happened to them, not only as survivors but as people who have lost loved ones. It can be very emotional for people, but it is important that we share the stories and experiences. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), because he has been a fantastic champion in the House of Commons. I am surprised that he is not here, but I expect he has a good reason. Maybe he is watching.

I want to focus on the role of community. We are trying through the APPG to create a sense of community. We all accept that proper community support is hugely beneficial to those with mental health issues generally. Through my membership of the APPG, and my work as an MP more widely, I have become much better informed about what community looks like for those with eating disorders. The support of a community, whether it be family, friends, school or a support organisation, is a wonderful thing for anyone struggling with their mental health. It is so often the first support network that someone will reach out to, and families and friends are there to catch their loved ones in the most difficult times.

Community care is often the best approach to eating disorder care. Beat’s “There’s No Place Like Home” report highlights the importance of expanding access to intensive community and day treatment for eating disorders. In many cases, it could be a lifeline for those struggling, allowing them to access a support network nearby, rather than being sent to treatment facilities sometimes hundreds of miles from their homes. However, effective community care can seem a long way off when the existing services for eating disorder treatments are so stretched right across the UK.

I want to talk a little bit about Scotland, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is the Minister. The crisis in young people’s mental healthcare in Scotland is acute. CAMHS in Scotland are overwhelmed, and constituents contact me every week about their difficulties accessing services. My staff have to tell me to be careful not to raise people’s expectations, because the service is so overwhelmed. I have met staff who work in CAMHS and they are working so hard. I pay absolute tribute to them. They just need more resources.

I spoke to the chief executive of NHS Lothian specifically about the support for people with eating disorders, and she was very frank. She had just come into post and said that she thought the service was at the absolute minimum acceptable level. Perhaps I should not have welcomed that, but I did, because the starting point for fixing a broken system is to accept that it is not working. I welcome the fact that she did not try to gloss over it.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another big consideration is the mental health toll on people who work in eating disorder services and know that they cannot provide an adequate service to the many people who suffer? What are we doing for the people who work in these services and who want to do the best they can but simply cannot because of a lack of resources?

[Dr Arthur]

The workforce plan is key to resolving that, although I do not know an area in the NHS that has too many staff and wants to redistribute them. It is a huge challenge and we have to address it. Again, the starting point is to acknowledge that there is an issue and offer staff support where we where we can.

I raised this issue with NHS Lothian’s chief executive because—this was partly me exploiting my position— I had a close family member who had been dealing with an eating disorder. She was given an appointment to meet the service, and I was so frustrated, because it was months and months into the future. I waited patiently— I am a patient person—and my hope built up and up as we got closer to that day, but when we reached it, and my loved one went to the appointment, it was merely an assessment of whether a person needed proper support. I felt completely deflated. Hopefully, people are not still going through that.

In these times of crisis, it is all too often communities and families who are left to step up to provide what care they can. I have met parents in my constituency who are doing their absolute best for their children. I met one woman—another anecdote, I am afraid, Ms Vaz—who told me that her daughter was so weak that she had to phone an ambulance to take her to hospital. When her daughter arrived at the hospital, the medics said she was too weak to be removed from the ambulance and had to treat her there. The nature of the condition can often be secretive and very hidden until it is—hopefully not—too late.

Parents doing their absolute best is not enough, and professional medical help is required. Both the UK Government and the Scottish Government must go further to ensure that treatment is more readily accessible for those who can no longer rely solely on the support of their loved ones—I will come back to that. However, when considering the idea of community around eating disorders, we must also consider the online world and its ability to create a space for more dangerous communities.

Pro-eating disorder content, as referred to by the hon. Member for Bath, exists across the internet, from independent forums to social media sites that we all use daily. Those groups or posts provide “thinspiration” and tips on how someone can starve themselves or make themselves throw up. They glamorise the awful illness that eating disorders are, introducing them to previously well children and young people who might not have considered them, exaggerating conditions and sometimes normalising them.

This became particularly concerning during the pandemic, where we also saw a massive growth in eating disorders among the male population, as many young people were left isolated from their peers, turning to online communities. Instead of support, all too often they found content that damaged their mental health and isolated them further from the people around them. It is hard to understand just how disturbingly common such content is. Figures from April 2025 show that more than a quarter of young people have been exposed to eating disorder content online, which is likely an underestimation. That sits alongside the one third of children who have seen self-harm and suicide content online.

Social media sites are feeding young people this content from a never-ending algorithm, which we also heard about from the hon. Member for Bath. More children are likely to consume the content because of social media and its algorithms. The more they continue to see such content, the more they consume it, and the more they consume it, the more they continue to see it, creating a greater relationship with those harmful online communities.

The proliferation of this content is the result of passivity from tech firms, and in part, their profit motives. One study shows that Meta derives an annual $2 million in profit from pro-eating disorder content on Instagram. With content creating such profits, it is hard to see why social media sites would have ever self-regulated to ensure that content was hidden from children.

I met Meta this week, not to talk explicitly about eating disorders but to talk about the proposed ban on social media for under-16s. I can see that it is something the company feels challenged by, because it is concerned about a loss of income—not from people under 16, but from losing them as users as they move into adulthood. I hope, perhaps blindly, that there is an opportunity to work with those companies to ensure that the ban works properly. I support a ban on under-16s’ access to social media, and I know that my constituents do as well. We must also work with charities in this sector to make sure that the ban works.

I welcome the Online Safety Act and its commitment to ensuring that children see less harmful online content. Many constituents have contacted me since the summer raising concerns about the Act and what it means for their use of the internet as adults—often men, as hon. Members may not be surprised to hear. I understand the wider flaws, which I think were raised by the hon. Member for Bath when she spoke about their impact. While it is not perfect for eating disorders and suicidal ideation content for children and young people, it adds quite a lot of friction and makes it harder for young people to access that content. The Act is not perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction, and is a key part of protecting young people and reducing their exposure to harmful content, including eating disorder content and other negative influences.

I have only one more anecdote, you will be glad to hear, Ms Vaz. When I googled content about eating disorders and the Government policy on the train this morning, I was pleased to see Google was good at putting a warning in place, telling me that I might want to phone a particular helpline or contact a particular service to talk about eating disorders if that was why I was googling them. I was impressed by that and it is a good example of how tech companies, while they are quite often the bad guys, can do good stuff in this space as well. We must continue to ensure that communities supporting those with eating disorders are supported by proper medical care where necessary, and do all we can to remove harmful content.

I am sure this is not the first time that the Minister has attended a debate in Westminster Hall, or even in the main Chamber, in which the Government have been asked for a strategy, more staff and greater clarity about what they do. I know that he cares about this subject and that the Government are doing work in this area, but the calls for a strategy make sense because it would help to pin that work together and give us clarity about the next steps. I look forward to hearing the Minister sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I am sorry.

The last Government’s work to channel more resources into mental health could not have been more welcome. This year, 2025-26, will be the first since 2016-17 that mental health spending has not risen as a proportion of health spending. That contravention of the mental health investment standard has raised alarm bells at the Health and Social Care Committee. Can the Minister enlighten us as to why the Government have decided to break the mental health investment standard after nearly a decade of progress? Does he think the percentage is now about right? Does it concern him that some ICBs have cut funding for mental health services? How does he expect that to impact on patients suffering from eating disorders?

I am particularly concerned about the impact on children and young people, and I declare an interest as a consultant NHS paediatrician. Some 6.4% of adults have a diagnosed eating disorder, but 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds have been diagnosed with an eating disorder since 2023. That amounts to one in five girls in that age group—four times the prevalence in boys. What specific action is the Minister taking to improve early intervention?

The previous Government got the ball rolling on establishing mental health support teams in schools, and had reached 35% coverage by the time of the general election, with a commitment to increase that to 100% of schools and colleges in England by 2030. Does the Minister plan to build on that work? What further action is he taking to improve links between eating disorder services, schools and families to ensure a joined-up approach to accessing specialist help and early diagnosis, which, as we have heard, is critical?

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) spoke of the challenges of transition. As a paediatrician, I see the challenges of transitioning many paediatric and adolescent conditions between children’s and adult services, but can the Minister say what he is doing specifically for those transitioning with eating disorders?

In my role as chair of the APPG on emerging drugs and online behavioural trends, I know the effect of social media on children’s and young people’s behaviours. Researchers from University College London, who examined evidence from 50 studies in 17 countries, found that social media usage is linked to eating disorders in young people, as it viciously promotes the idea that it is essential to be thin and fit, triggering a potentially extreme preoccupation with body image, weight and shape. Those obsessions are compounded by AI content, which can depict simply unachievable so-called perfection. As the hon. Member for Bath said, there are harmful videos online, with algorithms driving that harm, and those who look at these things seeing them more and more.

I recently held a policy debating competition among year 10 and year 12 students in my constituency, where students chose the topic of debate. Many of them spoke in favour of a social media ban for children as young as 16. It is a difficult issue, and that is not a perfect solution, but having just got a new mobile phone myself, I wonder why, when someone buys a phone, it cannot be set at a fixed age that can be changed only by the adult who pays the bill. A change in the law to restrict social media for under-16s would help to reduce that problem. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

NHS guidance on eating disorders for ICBs has been raised in the debate. The NHS has refreshed that guidance, which is welcome, but patients will feel the difference only if it is actually implemented. The Minister has confirmed that there will not be a dedicated strategy for eating disorders, and there is no mention at all of eating disorders in the 70,000-word 10-year plan. Is the Minister confident that the refreshed guidance for ICBs will be sufficient on its own to improve care for people with eating disorders and to get waiting lists down? Does he have a strategy for how it will be enforced?

We have talked about the effects on families and carers. What action is the Minister taking to engage families, carers and supportive charities in plans for care? What support is available for parents, carers and siblings?

Workforce is key to delivering this strategy. We know that waiting times for eating disorder treatment are getting worse; analysis from Beat found that, in some cases, people with eating disorders face a three-and-a-half-year delay between falling ill and starting treatment. For someone with an eating disorder, that is three and a half years deeper into the illness. As we have heard, that makes it all the more difficult to treat the patient effectively and quickly pull them out of that difficult, dark place. What steps is the Minister taking to increase workforce capacity to help treat these patients and restore some stability and normality to their lives? I feel as though I ask this question every time, but the NHS long-term workforce plan is still not with us, having been delayed from last year, so when will it be published, and what tangible action will it take to boost the NHS eating disorders service?

It is not just about hiring more staff; it is also about where we are hiring them. That is important work, but more needs to be done to build on the progress. The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership produced a highly detailed report about in-patient eating disorder service provision in the UK. As expected, there were blackspots for those vital services in many rural and coastal areas, such as in Lincolnshire. For adults and families in constituencies such as mine, where the closest service may be an hour’s car journey away, accessing eating disorder services is remarkably difficult. The Government have been insistent that rural and coastal areas will not be left behind on healthcare, but the blackspots tell us otherwise.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way—I have to say that she is one of my favourite Tories. Does she agree that there is a real inequality here? A one-hour car drive is a challenge, but if someone does not have a car, it is even more difficult. If they have a child, they might have to take a day off work to take them somewhere. So getting services, or capacity in the community, closer to people should absolutely be the ambition, shouldn’t it?

[Dr Johnson]

I completely agree. This is not just about people who have a car; for people who do not have a car and who are reliant on public transport, it can be even more difficult. People also struggle to take time off work because of the financial cost. For those who do have a car, there is also the cost of the petrol or diesel to get to the appointment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on what he is doing to ensure that the neighbourhood and community slant of the three pillars of his health improvement plan are working in that regard.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, in-patient services are limited in capacity. In my paediatric practice, I have seen patients waiting on acute general paediatric wards—sometimes for several weeks—but those are really not the right place for them to be cared for. Could the Minister update us on what he is doing about increasing capacity in regional services?

I would like to speak a little about two other types of eating disorder: avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder and Prader-Willi syndrome. ARFID involves limiting the amount or variety of food consumed. It is not just picky eating. I have seen a teenager who lives on just plain pasta, nuggets and chips, and a younger boy who lives on a single flavour of one brand of milkshake and no solid food at all. That can be driven by fear and sensory and other issues. What is the Minister doing to make sure that services are available for these young children? NHS England’s refreshed eating disorder guidance recommends:

“ICBs should develop and deliver ARFID care pathways”.

What steps is the Minister taking to improve early diagnosis of ARFID, and what work will be done to train primary carers to identify it in children and adults, particularly in cases of neurodivergence?

Prader-Willi syndrome is a rare genetic disorder causing excessive appetite and overeating, which can lead to dangerous weight gain and restricted growth. Around 2,000 people live with Prader-Willi syndrome in the UK, and there is no cure. It is not mentioned in the NHS guidance, so what work is the Minister doing to ensure that people suffering from PWS have access to the care they need? What steps are we taking to expand genetic testing at birth to identify PWS and improve early access to treatment for these patients?

To sum up, mental health challenges are on the rise, and eating disorders are no exception. I urge the Minister to implement a clear approach to tackling eating disorders for adults, children and young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

The hon. Lady makes a really valid point. She will know, as I do, that the regulation of these platforms in relation to children’s access is a live issue at the heart of Government at the moment. She is right: the current provisions are not strong enough to be adequate safeguards. We do need more proactive intervention from our technology partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology takes that very seriously and is pushing very hard on it in relation to not only harm in this space, but harm in general, for children online.

Ofcom ensures that services uphold these duties, including for smaller online sites. Its small but risky services taskforce has assessed 20 services relating to this harm, over half of which have been at high risk for eating disorder content. I am happy to write to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on the back of this debate, to learn from them what further action specific to eating disorders is coming down the pipeline, and I can relay that information to hon. Members assembled in this Chamber today.

I also share the deep concern about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care.

[Dr Arthur]

Before we move on to end-of-life care, I welcome the great offer that the Minister has given to reach out to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to better understand what they are doing on digital platforms. I expect that many of the people who are going to respond to the consultation around the banning of social media for under-16s will come from the healthcare profession, because of the connections between mental health and eating disorders and the use of these platforms. Will he be proactively asking for action to make sure that young people are protected? That would also mean more resources for people who have eating disorders, because hopefully fewer people would be coming forward.

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Being proactive and following the evidence should be our north star when we are formulating policy; I know that is true of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been explicit about eating disorders and end-of-life care. Anorexia nervosa is not a terminal illness in its own right. The college’s guidance on medical emergencies in eating disorders was developed precisely to ensure that preventable deaths become a thing of the past. NHS England is clear that no patient with an eating disorder should routinely be placed in palliative care. Our focus must always be on treatment and recovery, and underpinned by the hope of recovery.

We also share concerns about the accurate recordings of deaths where eating disorders may have been a contributing factor. The hon. Member for Bath outlined some of her frustrations regarding correspondence with the Ministry of Justice and I would be happy to take up that call on her behalf to make sure that she gets the correspondence that she is entitled to. The statutory medical examiner and coroner system provides a clear framework to ensure that deaths are properly investigated and recorded so that lessons are identified and patient safety is strengthened.

Although it is for the coroner to exercise independent judicial discretion to determine what is recorded as the medical cause of death, I can reassure hon. Members that the coroner’s office has been undergoing training to ensure that the recording of deaths associated with eating disorders is done more accurately and proactively. Accurate recording matters, and we will continue to work with our partners, including colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and clinicians, to ensure that not only are the statistics captured, but the learning underpinning those statistics is reflected in genuine improvements to care.

Eating disorders are serious and complex mental illnesses that can affect anyone at any age and in any community or family. They require timely treatment, skilled professionals and sustained support thereafter.

Brain Tumour Survival Rates

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

I am hearing my hon. Friend’s call to action loud and clear. I can report to her that—this is in addition to the other ongoing clinical trials in the area of brain tumour and glioma research—in October 2025, RECURRENT-GB opened for recruitment. This is a new UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial, supported by nearly £2 million of NIHR funding, which will explore, for instance, whether surgery can improve the quality of life for patients with glioblastoma when the glioblastoma comes back after treatment. I know that my hon. Friend will hold our feet to the fire when it comes to recruitment and the money being used appropriately, and I am delighted to continue working with her in that regard.

Since this Government took office, over 213,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more people are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite these vital signs of recovery, we know that our NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families, as Members from across the House have highlighted this evening. We know that brain tumours remain one of the hardest cancers to treat, and it remains a challenging and underserved area of research.

Last week, the Government published our national cancer plan. We now have a blueprint to shift the dial on rare and challenging cancers, underpinned by three key targets. First, we aim to save 330,000 more lives by 2035 by ensuring that three in every four people diagnosed in 2035 will be cancer-free or living well with cancer five years after diagnosis. Secondly, we will achieve the three cancer performance targets, which I mentioned earlier, by the end of March 2029. Finally, we will improve the quality of life for people living with cancer.

Rare and less common cancers are a priority for the Government, and this is the first ever cancer plan with a whole chapter dedicated to rare cancers. We aim to be in the top quartile of European countries for 14 rare cancers, including brain tumours, where we currently rank 22nd out of 24. We will pull every lever available to drive improvements for these cancer types. We know that one of the most effective ways to improve survival from cancer, including brain cancer, is to catch it and treat it early, so we have committed to reducing the number of rare cancers diagnosed in emergency settings, including brain tumours, which cannot be staged like other cancers and have therefore not been previously captured by early diagnosis measures.

[Dr Arthur]

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.

[Dr Ahmed]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is why NIHR funding has been specifically allocated. One of the tests for a grant is the diversity of the population it will serve.

We recognise the challenges presented by brain tumours. By publishing regular performance data at a more granular level and adding diagnosis in emergency settings to our basket of early diagnosis metrics, we are committed to moving the dial on these issues. For all patients diagnosed with rare cancers, we will prioritise access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams to ensure that they benefit from the best of evidence-based care. We will work with charities to support rare cancer patients, and to ensure that they have access to the right information to manage their cancer care. We wish to be held accountable on these commitments and to drive forward progress for rare cancer patients, and we will therefore appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will provide independent arbitration.

The actions I have listed make up just a small part of our plan. It will turn cancer, which is one of the country’s biggest killers, into a treatable chronic condition. We have developed our plans with patients, charities, families and clinicians, and have heard from many Members today. We are grateful for the continued campaigning on rare cancers and brain tumours.

National Cancer Plan

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

We have extended NHS bowel cancer screening to cover people from the age of 50, and between now and 2028 we will be increasing the sensitivity of the faecal immunochemical test—otherwise known as the FIT test—and rolling it out nationally by 2028. Combined with increased uptake, that will deliver 17,000 earlier diagnoses by 2035 and save almost 6,000 lives.

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

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?

[Ashley Dalton]

I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he has done, particularly on the Rare Cancers Bill, which the Government are delighted to support. Not only does this plan have the first ever chapter on rare and less-survivable cancers, but we will be appointing the first ever clinical lead for rare cancers, whose job it will be to make sure that rare cancers are properly counted, registered and that we continue to deliver in this area. I would be delighted to visit the House of Hope next time I am in Edinburgh.

Less Survivable Cancers

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate, a week ahead of Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week.

The six less survivable cancers—those of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach—take 67,000 lives every year. That is equivalent to two people every week in each UK constituency—a non-trivial number. The survival rate at five years is just 16%, so for many people who get a diagnosis of one of these cancers, it must feel like a death sentence.

Too often, people with these cancers are diagnosed late. Only 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 and 2, compared with 54% of cancers overall, and too many diagnoses are made in emergency departments, where treatment choices are limited. More broadly, we should never forget that someone who is female or from an ethnic minority is much more likely to be diagnosed with cancer in A&E, which is absolutely shameful.

We know what change would look like. If we could double early diagnosis across those six cancers, we could save an additional 7,500 lives every year. That should be our goal, and that is why I am proud that this Government are focused on prioritising early detection and faster diagnosis. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), here with us today. She is respected and trusted by the wider sector to deliver that agenda as part of the cancer plan, which hopefully we will see next month.

This change can be achieved through investing in research, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), as well as supporting the roll-out of innovative tests—such as liquid biopsies and the breath test for pancreatic cancer, which we saw at the UK Labour party conference—and expanding proactive case finding for those most at risk. Centres of excellence, better data and stronger national leadership are also critical.

I speak not just as a participant in today’s debate but as the sponsor of the Rare Cancers Bill, which hon. Members have mentioned; I thank them for their kind comments. The Bill is designed to help address exactly those gaps. I introduced it after my father-in-law Ivor died of glioblastoma, the cancer type that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has dedicated so much of her life to defeating. My Bill seeks to improve data collection, increase access to clinical trials and strengthen pathways for people with rare and less survivable cancers. The voices of those patients are often not heard. I really hope that in today’s debate, people will feel that they are heard. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Puberty Suppressants Trial

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I wish I had certainty on this issue, and in some ways I envy my hon. Friend for his certainty. Having occasionally found myself to be a lonely voice in my party when sat on the Opposition Benches, I respect the fact that it is not easy to be a minority, dissenting voice, especially when one feels so strongly about an issue. I respect my hon. Friend’s position, even though I disagree with it—I do think this trial is the right thing to do. He is right that we need love, compassion and empathy for these young people; we also need to understand what health and care support will produce the best outcomes for them, which is what the trial is about.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Nobody envies him the decisions he has to make, but he has made the right decision on this.

During my election campaign, I met a fantastic mother—no mother could have loved their daughter more. She told me about how, when her daughter entered puberty, she had to come to terms with her biological sex, and about the impact on her mental health. To delay puberty, she stopped eating. She ended up arriving at hospital in an ambulance, so weak that she had to be treated in that ambulance. I welcome the fact that the trial will look at some of the side effects of puberty blockers, but will it also consider the impact of not taking puberty blockers in some cases? Will the Secretary of State also tell us how the House will be kept up to date on the trial as it progresses?

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that we will keep the House regularly updated. The risks he has described have weighed heavily on my conscience when putting in place a permanent ban on puberty blockers; I have understood the risk involved, and the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people. I also meant to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), that the parents of trans young people love their children very much. That has been at the heart of so many of the representations I have received, from parents as well as from young people.