Rare Cancers Bill
Friday 14th March 2025
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We all know someone who has suffered from a rare cancer—a brain tumour, childhood cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, or one of the other cancers on a long list that are unfortunately all too familiar. Each of them may statistically be considered rare, but collectively they are anything but rare. Blood Cancer UK states that rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses—a staggering 180,000 a year. The irony of the Bill’s title is that so-called rare cancers are not rare. Common cancers deserve attention, but so too do rare cancers.
I want to share an example of a family in my constituency who were confronted with a rare cancer. Tilly’s first symptoms were leg pains and loss of appetite. This was in September 2021, when face-to-face GP consultations were not possible. On visiting A&E, she was given ibuprofen. It was thought that she might have a virus. Six weeks later, she returned to A&E and was transferred to the cancer ward, where she was diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma. On diagnosis, she was given a 50% chance of survival. Despite undergoing over a dozen rounds of chemotherapy and an operation, she sadly passed away about a year after her first symptoms appeared. Tilly was just four years old. Her father Jonathan, a headteacher in my constituency, is in the Gallery. He reached out to me after reading about the Bill. He explained his frustration that the development of new treatments for neuroblastoma has been moving at a glacial pace for too long. The same is true for many other rare cancers. This slow pace of change is not respected by these cancers, and it meant that Tilly missed her seventh birthday yesterday.
I thank Jonathan for sharing Tilly’s story, and wish him all the best as he moves to Northern Ireland with Tilly’s mum and big sister Emily to start a new job. I thank Livingston’s Team Jak for their ongoing support for Tilly’s family and many others. Neither Jonathan nor I want to suggest that the Bill would have saved Tilly, but we hope that it will improve survival rates for others, and take them beyond the 50% rate given to Tilly. That is why Jonathan is here today, and why I am here today.
Nobody told me that the most amazing thing about being an MP would be the people we meet almost daily, who want to make their community, our country or even the world a better place. That is particularly true of the people I have been humbled to meet on my journey to speaking about the Bill today, including cancer patients, survivors, the bereaved and campaigners, all of whom want just one thing: justice. Although the healthcare system in the UK is founded on the notion of equality, fairness and justice, they believe that rare cancer patients are being overlooked. Their demand for justice covers three points.
The first is that beating a rare cancer should not be less likely than beating other cancers. I have said that 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses each year are of rare and less common types. These patients already have the cards stacked against them, as they are 17% less likely to survive—an injustice caused by the relative lack of research and development in this field over many years.
Secondly, having a rare cancer should not mean being less likely to benefit from a medical breakthrough. According to Cancer52, in 2024, an astonishing 82% of patients with rare and less common cancers were not offered a clinical trial, and so were denied access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Often that is because such trials do not even exist, because there has been so little progress, and when they do exist, they are not always easy for patients to access.
Let me give an example: there is a remarkable young woman in my constituency known as Kira the Machine. Kira has been living with neuroblastoma since she was 10. She has been through it all: a prognosis of inoperability, 26 rounds of chemotherapy and eight relapses. Her and her mum, Aud, are fundraising legends locally. I do not know a school or workplace in Edinburgh that did not help when they were given just three weeks to raise £500,000 for lifesaving specialist treatment in the USA. Now 21 and fundraising for other cancer sufferers, Kira is an example to us all. She owes her life to a lung cancer drug not typically provided to treat neuroblastoma and not yet generally available in the UK for that purpose, although I understand that Solving Kids’ Cancer is working on that.
Kira appears on my social media so much, and is really well known in Edinburgh because of the fantastic campaign that she and her mum ran. She is a bit of a celebrity, if I can use that word. She came into my office recently to talk about the Bill. It was really humbling to meet her, and because she has that celebrity status, in my mind, I was also quite starstruck; I told her that it was like Taylor Swift entering my office. I resisted the temptation to exchange friendship bracelets with her, but she gave me a Solving Kids’ Cancer badge, which I am proud to wear today.
Kira’s story is important because it reminds us that repurposing existing drugs can unlock great benefits, but those benefits can be delivered at scale only through additional medical research efforts and clinical trials.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The NHS has a drug repurposing office. To date, it has repurposed one drug, and that was for breast cancer. Does my hon. Friend think that is good enough?
Dr Arthur
I welcome that intervention; I think that was a leading question. Of course it is not good enough. I do not think that anybody here thinks that it is good enough, including the Minister. Unfortunately, at present there are very few clinical trials in this country for rare cancer treatments. Families such as Kira’s should not need to crowdfund for treatment overseas; we should be building the capacity here in the UK.
Thirdly, having a rare cancer should not mean that a diagnosis is delayed when compared with diagnoses of other cancers. Rare cancer sufferers tell me that their symptoms are often less likely to be recognised, as doctors are less familiar with them.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way he is introducing his Bill. My constituent Steph is just 29 years old and is a mam to two little girls. She was diagnosed with grade 4 glioblastoma, known as astrocytoma, on her birthday last year. For months prior to her diagnosis, she was treated for migraines by her GP. Steph knew that she was not suffering from migraines, yet she was rudely dismissed by an A&E doctor, and felt nobody was listening to her. Steph has since had brain surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. My hon. Friend knows that early diagnosis and treatment is vital. Can he assure Steph and her family, and me, that the Bill will help to raise awareness across the medical profession of rare brain cancers?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. Last week, I attended a reception for the Eve Appeal. I was really struck by the fact that early diagnosis was a big feature of what the charity was talking about, and I will come on to that in just a second.
As a consequence of the lack of recognition of the symptoms of rare cancers, too many people are diagnosed too late. Last week, at an event hosted by the Brain Tumour Charity, I met Gabrielle and her wife and children. Gabrielle told me how the neurologist to whom she was initially referred did not recognise her brain tumour symptoms, and told her instead to go home, breathe into a paper bag and get some counselling. If only curing brain tumours was so easy. Reflecting on the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), an observation that I have made on this journey is that so many of the people who have talked about late diagnosis have been women. That is purely anecdotal, but it seems to be the case. When I was at the Eve Appeal reception, the point was made that so many women are turned away; the GP tells them that they are hormonal, premenstrual or premenopausal.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point, with which many across the Chamber will agree. The statistics are particularly stark for women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds; they are even more likely to be dismissed.
Dr Arthur
I thank my hon. Friend and office neighbour for making that point, which was also made by Eve Appeal. I cannot remember the statistics, but there is a stark difference. I talked about this issue when I met the Minister yesterday and she gently pointed out to me that it is not just in healthcare where women are dismissed as hormonal, premenstrual and so on. I thanked her for reminding me of that in the gentlest possible way.
It is a cruel irony that rare cancers such as Gabrielle’s tumour are typically less survivable, making early diagnosis even more important. Rare cancer patients require early, not later, diagnosis. I have spoken about poor outcomes, lack of progress in developing treatments and late diagnosis. My Bill focuses on the first two points, but I want to acknowledge the need to improve diagnosis, because of comments that have already been made. I am sure that will feature in the cancer plan.
I am the first to admit that, when I was successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I found it daunting as a new MP. I thought I had some really good ideas for a Bill, but as soon as my ping-pong ball was picked from the goldfish bowl, I was inundated with calls from constituents, charities and lobbyists, each telling me that their cause was better than any I could think of. I considered many worthwhile causes over the following days, but while having a coffee in Colinton Mains Tesco in Edinburgh South West, I received emails from members of the public who support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). Just last week I met Oriana, one of the people who emailed me. It was incredibly moving to meet her; it took me right back to the start of this journey. I posted on my Facebook page about meeting her, and straight away somebody said that they knew her and that she had helped them when their family had been faced with glioblastoma. That is a reminder that so many people affected by these conditions turn their loss into something really positive and help other people.
My hon. Friend’s campaign relates to glioblastoma, a type of tumour that took my father-in-law. I felt that the stars had aligned for me. I really do mean that; I really did get that feeling. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] More, more! I know her to be a formidable woman who in this context is driven by glioblastoma taking her sister, Margaret. I did not know her sister at all, which is my loss, but I do know that she shaped my party and she helped change our country for the better, and I know above all that she was loved by her sister.
Glioblastoma is typical of so many rare cancers, and it started me on this journey so I want to talk about it further. My father-in-law, Ivor Hutchison, was a dignified man but glioblastoma did not respect that. He was a technical teacher at Bell Baxter high school in Fife. He was married to Sylvia and they have four daughters, Denise, Iona, my lovely wife Audrey who is in the Gallery —I have just embarrassed her—and Sarah. In time, Ivor and Sylvia had grandchildren: Andrew, our daughter Ruth, Hannah, Matthew, our son Ben, Rory and Sophie. Ivor was not a passive grandfather; he worked hard to ensure his grandchildren flourished.
In September 2017, Ivor began having problems with his speech. My wife Audrey, an NHS nurse, was concerned that it might be a sign of dementia. We all hoped that that was not the case. Following an MRI scan in the November, we received the devastating news that Ivor had glioblastoma. At Christmas he was still very much himself and enjoyed the festivities. Ivor never had a pound of fat on him, but when it came to Christmas time he really did hoover up the food and enjoyed the Christmas meal. It was great to see him that Christmas, but we did feel that it would be his last. Once we entered the new year, he began to lose his mobility, and eventually he was admitted to Adamson hospital in Cupar. In 2018, surrounded by his wife and daughters, Ivor died peacefully, eight months after his first symptoms. He had a good life and his daughters are a fantastic legacy to him, as well as all the pupils he taught at school.
However, as a physically fit man, Ivor should have lived longer: he should have lived to see his birthday last weekend, and if he had done so, he would not have missed two of his grandchildren getting married and his first great-grandchild, Fraya, being born in December last year. I assumed that he had been unlucky with glioblastoma. It was not until I met my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that I learned that only 25% of glioblastoma patients live beyond 12 months after diagnosis, and only one in 20 survive beyond five years. Despite that awful prognosis, as for other rare cancers, the drugs to treat glioblastoma have not changed in decades. That is why I knew in my heart that I needed to introduce a Bill that would help equip those working hard to fight against glioblastoma, and all rare cancers, with the tools they need to further their efforts and, ultimately, save lives.
Over the past 15 years, thanks to the dedicated work of charities, survivors and researchers, we have seen a 10% rise in survival rates for those diagnosed with cancer. Globally, new treatments are being developed and rolled out to patients, improving outcomes and saving lives in our NHS every single day. However, rare cancer patients are being left behind, and I need to explain why. It is not due to a lack of effort by charities or those affected by the disease. In fact, in the Gallery today are members of some incredible charities who are fighting against rare cancers in what is often an uphill battle. I thank them for their hard work in helping me to develop the Bill—they really have helped me—which aims to address the injustices faced by rare cancer patients and their families. For all the people I have met from the charities, their work is much more than a job for them; it is about making a difference to people’s lives, improving survivability and supporting families.
The reason for the uphill battle is that research into rare cancer is much less appealing to pharmaceutical companies when compared with more common conditions. With smaller patient populations, there is an increased logistical challenge in bringing patients together. Currently, we are lacking a sufficient development strategy and there is no single source of patient data, meaning companies must undertake the costly endeavour of finding patients and verifying eligibility. Even if they succeed in running a clinical trial and a drug proves to be an effective treatment, companies face the challenge of selling a drug developed at great expense to a small market. Ultimately, these companies exist to return a profit for their shareholders. Given a choice between investment in potential treatment for a rare cancer or a more a common one, too often rare cancer patients lose out.
Having set out the challenges faced by those diagnosed with rare cancers, let me now address what the Bill aims to accomplish. I will list four key measures and explain their impact: appointing a named responsible lead for the delivery of rare cancer research; creating a single registry of rare cancer trials; creating a single registry of rare cancer patients available for trials; and defining an evidence base for repurposing new cancer treatments. Let me explain in turn why these are important.
First, the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate and promote research related to rare cancer patients. The appointment of a national specialty lead for rare cancers in the National Institute of Health and Care Research would provide the Secretary of State with advice on the design and planning of research to facilitate collaboration between relevant parties. That will ensure co-ordination and accountability for the delivery of new cancer research in the UK.
Secondly, the Bill would increase access to clinical trials via a service tailored to rare cancer patients. Through the Secretary of State’s new duties, that would be accomplished as part of the existing “Be Part of Research” registry, ensuring that all trials are registered in a single place.
Thirdly, charities and clinicians tell me that more trials would be attracted to the UK if we had easier access to patient cohorts. Establishing a single database of willing patients would remove a significant burden on researchers in finding and verifying eligible people for clinical trials.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing a Bill on this important subject. He mentions research. Can he explain why the extent of clauses 2 and 3 is limited to England and Wales? What is happening in Scotland in relation to the research issues?
Dr Arthur
The challenge is devolution. I am a huge fan of devolution, but often the UK is at its best when it works together, particularly on healthcare. I hope that in time we will see progress and the nations will work together. I do not want to overstate this, but there have been discussions across the UK about how we could work together on the issue, so perhaps the answer is, “Watch this space.”
The Bill’s fourth measure is to trigger a review by the Government of the orphan drug regulations, to examine how they can be reformed to better incentivise pharmaceutical companies to invest in clinical trials for rare cancers. Specifically, it will consider how incentives could be provided to pharmaceutical companies to trial the repurposing of new cancer treatments. We often hear about how drug development for one cancer can be used to defeat another; that is what Kira relies on right now. My Bill aims to build a foundation for industrialising that approach via incentives. The EU has a similar system for incentivising the testing of drugs for paediatric use that have already been approved for adult use, so the approach has been tried and tested.
Together, these measures will ensure that we have leadership in Government and will remove the barriers to running new clinical trials that researchers and pharmaceutical companies face.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which he is introducing the Bill. Will he recognise the work of pioneering teams such as the one at Charing Cross hospital, under Imperial College healthcare NHS trust, where Professor Michael Seckl is leading the way in groundbreaking treatment for and research on gestational trophoblastic disease and germ cell tumours? Does he agree that those centres need support to expand and share their research findings with the rest of the NHS?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. There is fantastic expertise in our universities across the UK; as I say that, I have to refer hon. Members to my registered interests because of my connections with the university sector. There is much more that we can do to attract the best researchers to the UK and build capacity in UK universities.
The Bill will provide greater accountability for the delivery of new research, but please do not just take my word for it. Brain Tumour Research has described it as
“essential for a brain tumour cure”.
I did not feel any pressure at all when I read that quote! No, it was quite daunting, to be honest. The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce says that the Bill
“could be a truly transformative moment in the UK’s approach to research for rare and less common cancers.”
My friends at the Brain Tumour Charity say that the Bill
“is a framework for tangible, impactful change.”
At this point, I have to mention my daughter’s connection with the Brain Tumour Charity. She is running a marathon in May to raise funding for it, and I wish her well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.
Let me list some of the other groups that support the Bill. They include Pancreatic Cancer UK, which has been absolutely fantastic in its support for what we are doing; Cancer52, an organisation that represents more than 100 groups; the Angel Mums; the Grace Kelly Childhood Cancer Trust; and the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Network UK. Inflammatory breast cancer accounts for 2% of breast cancer diagnoses in the UK each year, but 10% of the deaths.
The Bill is also supported by Target Ovarian Cancer, Brainstrust, AMMF—the Cholangiocarcinoma Charity, the Urology Foundation, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Action Kidney Cancer and Sarcoma UK, which I met this week. I have a friend with that cancer, and it is a fantastic organisation that I hope to work more with in the future.
It is supported by Maggie’s, Shine Cancer Support, Solving Kids’ Cancer, the British Liver Trust, Blood Cancer UK, Radiotherapy UK, Leukaemia UK, CCLG—the Children and Young People’s Cancer Association, CLL Support, Neuroblastoma UK, Salivary Gland Cancer UK, Neuroendocrine Cancer UK, Melanoma Focus, Myeloma UK, Hope For Tomorrow, Alike, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Young Lives vs Cancer, the Tessa Jowell Foundation, the UK Mastocytosis Support Group, the Bone Cancer Research Trust, the Neurosciences Foundation and the Eve Appeal.
The Eve Appeal had a fantastic reception last week, and when I went along to it, having its support felt like a real tipping point in the progress we are making in building support for the Bill. It was great to see the Minister as well, and I have to say—this is not a trivial point—that the cake there was absolutely fantastic. I do not doubt that when I get back to my office and check my emails, more organisations will have got in touch to say that they want to support what we are doing today.
I know that many Members in the Chamber today will have deeply personal stories to tell, on their own behalf and on behalf of their constituents. I look forward to hearing those testimonies as we debate this Bill, because it is so important to give those people a voice. I will conclude by saying that the Bill we are debating today has a real chance of making a difference. For too long, rare cancer patients have been left on the sidelines without significant advancement—this cannot go on. Tilly and Ivor deserved a better chance of beating the cancer inside them, and those who are yet to be diagnosed deserve a better chance of a full life. Let us pass this Bill today and work across the UK to take the fight to rare cancers and save lives. I commend this Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the first speaker, I am aware that this is a very personal debate for some Members, so please feel free to leave the Chamber if you need to. Let’s look after each other today.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), both on his good fortune in being drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on his wisdom in picking this very important issue to take forward. Having been similarly lucky in being drawn in that ballot a few weeks after I was first elected, nearly a decade ago, I know the barrage of calls and emails that suddenly come your way—the very sudden and slightly fleeting popularity that comes from coming towards the top of the private Member’s Bill ballot—and the very many, very worthy causes and campaigns that come your way for you to choose between. The hon. Gentleman could not have picked a better cause than the one represented by this Bill, and if he is never again quite as popular as he was in the few hours after the publication of the ballot results, I know that he would willingly exchange all of that popularity in an instant for the difference that this legislation can make to so many lives across the country, if and when it is passed and implemented—as we hope it will be.
I stand today not just as a Member of this House but as a friend who is deeply moved by the pain of seeing someone I care about—someone who has become like family—struggle against an insidious disease. This Bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a cry for help. It is a plea for those who are fighting for their lives—a lifeline for families who are watching their loved ones slip away, bit by bit and day after day. Too often, those diagnosed with rare cancers are left stranded in a system that does not have the answers they need.
We know the wonders that pharmaceutical companies can do in drug development, but the horrible truth is that few people are able or willing to invest the enormous amount of money needed to take forward drug development—knowing that about one in 25,000 drug candidates make it to market—for conditions that will require that drug 1,000 or 2,000 times a year, at most.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a whole range of new modern immunotherapy drugs that could be used on these cancers? They already exist, they are used to treat other people, but they are simply not tried. The cost of those trials is not overwhelming and we can do them, and the NHS repurposing project should be doing them.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady is obviously right, and I know that she approaches this subject with, tragically, a huge amount of personal experience. We have already seen drugs—in some cases, long-marketed drugs—being applied for new purposes and new conditions. Without those costly clinical trials, they will not be licensed or approved for prescription, and that is why the Bill is so important. Clinical trials are sadly a distant hope for far too many currently, and many patients are left with the crushing, gut-wrenching words, “There is nothing more we can do.” Those words can be a death sentence, but they do not have to be—not if we act.
Many Members and House staff will know my senior parliamentary assistant and dear friend Dan Horrocks. He is best known as the owner of Bella, his therapy shih tzu who he had while he was being treated for his third brain tumour and who is often seen roaming around the Palace and 1 Parliament Street. Dan has worked for me since I was first elected in 2015, but he is not just my senior parliamentary assistant; he has become like family. He is a father, a husband and a four-time cancer survivor. For 14 years, he has fought this monster, each time feeling the ground slip more from under him as his options narrow, leaving him and his family with ever-reducing hope. We have seen him face unimaginable pain. I have watched him endure brain surgeries and radiotherapy, and seen the fear in his eyes each time the disease comes back and he hears his doctors tell him that they do not know how much more his body can take, and whether he can be put through that next course of radiotherapy.
Dan’s journey started with something as simple as headaches, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West referred to in another case, that no one thought were serious at the time. As a teenager, three GPs all misdiagnosed that tumour and for unknown reasons, the GPs did not want to send Dan for a scan. A simple scan to check that there were no malign causes would have identified those tumours months earlier. It was a free voucher for an eye test that saved Dan’s life, because it was not until, by sheer luck, an optician noticed something wrong in his eyes that anyone realised the nightmare he was living. That optician saved his life.
What followed has been nothing short of a nightmare: brain tumours, surgeries, radiotherapy and the heart-wrenching hope that every treatment might be the last, only for the disease to rear its ugly head again. Now the cancer has spread to his spine. His doctors and consultants have no answers. His options are dwindling, yet Dan’s fight is far from over, because Dan is not just fighting for himself, but for his two-year-old son, Elijah, who deserves to grow up with his father by his side, cheering him on at his first football match and guiding him through life’s milestones.
Dan dreams of walking his son to school every day and of being there for every moment that really matters, whether it is his graduation or his wedding—the moments that every parent should have the chance to see. He is fighting with his wife, Sonia, who has been his rock through all of this. Sonia has stayed by his side through every hospital visit, through every sleepless night, and through every moment of doubt and fear. Together they have dreamed of a life growing old together, of watching their child grow up, and of building memories that will last forever, but that future is slipping away. That is why we are here today—to ensure that no parent, no family, no child has to face the horror of rare cancer without hope. This Bill is not just about changing laws or regulations; it is about giving families like Dan’s a fighting chance. It mandates a review of the orphan drug regulations to ensure that rare cancers get the investment they so desperately need, creates the national specialty lead to drive research and innovation, and establishes a registry service to help to connect patients to the clinical trials that really could save their lives.
This Bill gives hope—a real chance for families who are facing the unimaginable. I stand here today with a heart full of hope, but also with a heavy heart, because I know that time is not on their side. Dan does not have the luxury of waiting. His family do not have the luxury of waiting. No one diagnosed with rare cancer has that luxury. That is why this Bill is so very urgent. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about politics, but this is not about politics: it is about real people like Dan who desperately need our help.
Cancer does not care about politics. It does not care what background we come from, our age or gender or what party we belong to. It strikes indiscriminately. It takes what it wants, and it leaves devastation in its wake. That is why we must respond with urgency, with compassion and, most importantly, with action. I strongly support this Bill and I urge all hon. Members here today to stand with us, to stand with the families clinging to the hope that there is something more we can do and to stand with those, like Dan, who are fighting for more time, for more moments, for more chances to hold their loved ones close. The cost of inaction is measured not just in money, but in precious lives lost. Let us pass this Bill. Let us give people like Dan and his family the hope they so desperately need. Let us give them a future—a future that is still within reach.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I rise to speak about a Bill that will increase research funding focused on more effective treatments for rarer forms of cancer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill.
Like many in this House, I rise today because I have lost a family member to a rare cancer, and I also rise as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. In the last Parliament, the Committee conducted a Future Cancer inquiry, which recommended that
“the UK should be leading on driving up international action to tackle the poor outcomes for the least survivable and least common cancers. “
This Bill will do that—but, as I say, my reason for speaking in this debate is much more personal. On 20 January this year, my brother Alex English passed away from high-grade acinic cell carcinoma, a form of salivary gland cancer. I tell his story to highlight what we can win, because this Bill can give families the gift of more time with the special people they love.
Increasingly, more common cancers are treatable or are illnesses that people can live with, but on rare cancers we still have a way to go, and without focus we will not get any further. There are more than 700 diagnoses of various forms of salivary gland cancer each year, but my search for related terms in Hansard finds only two mentions in this Chamber in the past 30 years—my hon. Friend has just made the third. One of those mentions was from me, following my brother’s death. That is why we need more focus.
In evidence to that Select Committee inquiry, Cancer52 noted that, while they represent 47% of diagnoses of less common cancers, rare cancers account for 55% of deaths. Members across this House have our own cancer journeys—ourselves, our friends or our loved ones—and I want to talk about my brother’s journey. Not all cancer journeys have the outcome that we want, and even with this Bill we will still lose some people, but more investment into research for rare cancers can give us something crucial: time. I would do anything for more time with my brother.
If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about the person who Alex was. The most important thing about Alex was not how he died; it was how he lived and the mark he left on the world. He fit a lot into 53 years. A lot of us think that our elder siblings are rock stars, but in my brother’s case that was literally true. The band he joined at university, called Pure, toured with bands like Soundgarden and reached the top 10 in Japan.
I have always been tremendously proud to call him my brother. I was proud of the horse-drawn narrowboat company he ran in Hebden Bridge, which forms part of many people’s happy childhood memories, and of his subsequent time at the National Trust, where he helped properties to become profitable, worked to restore nature and worked with local authorities. His last major project was creating woodlands near Lunt, in Liverpool. But most of all, I was proud of the person he was. He was always funny—he had a surreal wit. He was unfailingly kind and the sort of non-toxic model of masculinity that the world needs more of. I remember the humour and love in the best man’s speech he gave for me, and I will never not be sorry that I have written eulogies for my brother but never a best man’s speech.
While preparing for Christmas in 2023, I got a call from Alex and he asked if I had a minute to talk, which was unlike him, because he would not generally be over-serious. He said he had a lump on the side of his face that was, in his words, unsightly but not overly concerning. It might have been cancer, but there are a number of other things that it could have been, and if it was cancer, it was likely to be a very treatable form. He instructed me to be aware of it but not make a big deal of it, because, typically, he did not want to worry our mum. Later, it transpired that it was acinic cell carcinoma, but the prognosis was good and they were going to operate. The cancer continued to grow. His operation took 14 hours. The thing about Alex’s tumour is that the version of the illness he had was high grade, which meant that it mutated faster. It is something that has only been identified in about 100 cases, and which no doubt could have been identified earlier had we known more about cancers like his.
Last spring, in my mum’s garden, during a hushed conversation with a different family member to the side, they told me that Alex might only have 18 months to live. I hugged my two-year-old son, who was playing in the garden unaware, because I was trying not to make a big deal of it—but sometimes you need to hug someone. Every update got worse, until I took a day off during the election campaign to visit him at the Christie hospital because his lung had collapsed.
Then, because it is never a straight line, his health improved. He got to sit up there in the Gallery to watch my maiden speech in Parliament. We went to a Pixies concert together at the Piece Hall in Halifax. Then he got worse, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on Christmas Eve last year he was hospitalised again. When he returned home, we knew he was coming home to die. I cannot say enough about his wonderful friends, particularly Matt and Sarah, and my incredible family, who cared for him at the end. All of us would have spent more time at his bedside if we could, because time with people you love is a privilege.
That is what this Bill is about: giving people more time with those they love, perhaps even a full lifetime together. In cases where the cancer is worse and it cannot be treated or cured, it is about giving people more time, better health and an understanding of the journey that they are on. It is about giving people more special moments, be it a Pixies concert or reading a story to a child—Alex read the best stories—and time to organise what you leave behind. People who develop cancers that are rare still matter, and they still deserve more time. The work to help people like Alex in the future must start today.
The Government have a renewed emphasis on tackling rare cancers, in memory of the sister of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and of Tessa Jowell, and for countless other campaigners, including those in the Gallery. What we need is focus and determination to respond quickly. I thank the House for indulging me today. Let us be that world leader that is so desperately needed in tackling rare cancers. Let us give families special time with those they love the most. Let us pass this Bill.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill before the House, and pay tribute to him and to the hon. Members who have already spoken so movingly on this subject, including the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her tireless advocacy.
The many forms of cancer categorised as rare according to the Bill might each strike a small number of people, but taken together rare cancers make up almost one in five of all cancer diagnoses. Each incident, each diagnosis, each prognosis has the same devastating impact on families throughout the country, my own being no exception. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, who was 53, was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma this time last year. At the time, he was serving in the Royal Air Force with the US Indo-Pacific command, one of his many tours, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was given nine to 12 months to live. For his wife Claire and his five children, the news changed everything.
In September, I joined Pip, his family and over 400 other loved ones at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire for what was called a “dining out” or farewell ceremony, an event to allow everyone to be together with Pip, potentially for one last time. You can imagine how difficult, yet how moving, that was. A few weeks later, Pip was lucky enough to come across the pioneering brain surgeon Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been trialling a treatment called oncothermia. This employs radio frequencies to target and heat malignant cancer tumour cells while avoiding healthy cells. Oncothermia is not currently available on the NHS and each one-hour treatment costs £1,000. A tumour like Pip’s requires 36 sessions.
For most people, indeed for almost all of us, that kind of money and, consequently, that course of care, is out of reach, but the 400 friends and family who attended Pip’s farewell dinner set up a GoFundMe page, which is now covering the cost of the treatment. We love Pip, which is why we all put in as much as we could to fund it. Cancers like this, with a brutal and bleak prognosis, bring people together to fight it. I want the Government to share that resolve. Since starting the monthly oncothermia sessions in December, the first MRI scan showed that Pip’s brain tumour had reduced in size from 7 cm to 1.7 cm. Pip is, thank God, still alive and watching today. European studies now suggest that oncothermia can extend life for four to five years. For Pip’s five children, that time is everything.
But that is not the whole of my experience with glioblastoma. In 2021, my husband John’s best friend Ian died from the disease. His widow Nicola is in the Gallery. Almost unbelievably, Nicola’s sister Karen, who had done so much to help Nicola through the loss of Ian, was herself diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma last year and died a few months later.
I know that others in the Chamber and in the Gallery have had their lives touched by glioblastoma, too. I am sure they will agree that in the past three decades there has been an unacceptable lack of progress made on this disease: a lack of progress in developing new treatments, making them widely accessible and keeping those diagnosed with glioblastoma here with their loved ones. In the past 50 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. Whereas in the 1970s only 25% of those diagnosed were expected to live 10 years, today over half do. That is a record of staggering success and represents countless lives extended, made richer and fuller, and even saved. When it comes to glioblastoma, however, there is far less to celebrate. The chances of living a decade with the disease are one in 100. The gains in life expectancy over recent decades can be measured in months—precious, yes, but not nearly enough.
Glioblastoma is a rare cancer, but also an exceptionally lethal one. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40, yet in recent years, glioblastoma has been apportioned only around 1% to 2% of UK cancer funding. In 2018, to honour Dame Tessa Jowell, the Government announced a doubling of funding for research into brain tumours, but six years later, it was widely reported that less than half of the pledged £40 million had actually been spent. During each of those years, as funding was being delayed and sluggishly deployed, more than 3,000 people in the UK were diagnosed with glioblastomas. Will the Government update the House on how the remaining funds have been and are being spent? Will the Minister assure me that as the national cancer plan is developed alongside the NHS 10-year plan, deliberate and specific consideration will be given to glioblastomas?
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency incentivises research on orphan drugs, granting exclusivity for manufacturers and making it cheaper to bring drugs to market once they are developed, but clearly, when it comes to glioblastomas, it has not had adequate success.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I have been to see the MHRA numerous times and have asked about repurposed drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies are worried about repurposing drugs; the fear is that if glioblastoma research were to affect the main cause for having the drug, that might make the drug less successful. We have beseeched the MHRA to treat glioblastoma separately. Would the hon. Lady support such a move?
Monica Harding
I would of course support such a move, and I urge the Government to listen and take action.
Getting it right on glioblastoma is vital. Despite minor breakthroughs, exciting innovations and apparently promising research leads, for this disease, there has simply not been the improvement in survival rates that most cancers have had. To put it bluntly, glioblastoma remains a death sentence—an increasingly common one. In the UK, cancer diagnoses have increased, but although there are some worrying sub-themes, this trend is largely due to increased life expectancy. However, that is not the case with glioblastoma. In the past 30 years, rates in the UK have more than doubled. There has been far more of an uptick than is attributable to us all living longer. More people are developing this disease, yet we have failed to make meaningful strides on treatment and cures, or even on giving those with glioblastoma a little more time with those dearest to them. Now is the moment to do something about that.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome its emphasis on improving research—I have already touched on drug development—and the provisions to facilitate clinical trials, because the grim reality is that for glioblastoma, those trials are hard to conduct. There are too few patients, and frequently their life expectancy is too limited. Anything that can be done to connect eligible patients with researchers faster and with less friction is valuable.
I emphasise that there are great opportunities in front of us for accelerating research and making broad advances in the battle against rare cancers. Along with almost half my parliamentary colleagues, I am proud to have pledged my support for the Lobular Moon Shot project, which advocates a boost of around £20 million over five years for research on the basic biology of invasive lobular breast cancer, with a view to developing new treatments. Despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, lobular breast cancer is in many ways treated like a rare cancer. It is under-researched, difficult to diagnose through the standard screening mammogram, and often presents fewer symptoms than invasive ductal carcinoma, which makes up the overwhelming majority of breast cancer incidents.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the hon. Lady is explaining very well, invasive lobular breast cancer is not classed as a rare cancer. I am concerned that it would not come within the scope of this Bill, so I gently ask if it could be widened at the next stage. As she says, lobular breast cancer has many characteristics of a rare cancer.
Monica Harding
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, lobular breast cancer is treated in many ways like a rare disease.
I recently met my constituent Kate, who was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2023. She explained to me that because almost all breast cancer research is based on the ductal variant, women like her are diagnosed later and often receive treatment oriented towards a cancer with a different biology from lobular cancer. Those two factors result in higher recurrence and lower survival rates. Kate has been in remission for more than a year, and has become an advocate for research. On her behalf, I ask the Minister whether she has met with the Lobular Moon Shot campaigners. What steps are the Government taking to increase research into the cancer? What consideration has she given to updating guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to encourage the use of MRIs to diagnose lobular breast cancer earlier?
The moon shot idea is the right one. In fighting cancer we should set ambitious goals, and we should innovate until we meet them. Moreover, as the Apollo project shows, research into seemingly narrow things often has spillover effects, producing vast, unanticipated benefits. That is often true when it comes to orphan drugs. To take just one example, Gleevec has changed the game, and not just for one rare form of leukaemia; it is now used to treat a range of other cancers and conditions.
The British pharmaceutical development sector is exceptionally strong, and now is a moment of potential. On genome mapping, artificial intelligence, biotech, immunotherapy and cancer vaccines, the UK is in a position to transform and save lives. I recognise the limited scope of the Bill, but I believe it to be vital. This House must take a keen interest in accelerating and incentivising research into rare cancers, including glioblastoma. This legislation meaningfully advances that goal.
I will speak briefly about young people and children, and specifically a lovely girl called Maddie Cowey. At the age of 18, Maddie was diagnosed with an alveolar soft part sarcoma. Sarcoma is an uncommon cancer that can occur anywhere in the body. All cancers in someone of Maddie’s age are considered rare, but in her case, the classification was ultra-rare. Partly in consequence, it took five months for her to receive a diagnosis. Maddie had just started university. She recalled that at the time it
“felt like my life was falling apart. In many ways it was and it did. It was a very lonely place.”
Maddie was diagnosed almost 10 years ago now. There are no approved treatments for Maddie’s type of rare cancer, and she is undergoing a clinical trial. It is likely that she will remain on treatment for life. Maddie is amazing; she is brave and she will not let cancer define her. I bring up her story because cancer in young people is so uncommon that often it is diagnosed later. Neither medical professionals nor young people expect it, but the later a diagnosis comes, the more likely the cancer is to be lethal. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the rare cancers afflicting young people are caught earlier?
Finally, I am reminded of something that Emily Dickinson once wrote about hope:
“I’ve heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest sea”.
We must get this right. We must give sufferers hope. We owe that to Pip’s family—his wife Claire and his five children—and to Nicola in the Gallery, and her and Ian’s sons Adam and Oliver, and to so many others who have suffered and who are here with us. I believe that we can.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to apologise to the young black man on the Northern line tube from Colliers Wood this morning for having to spend his journey looking at me sobbing my heart out. It must have been a very odd experience. I wanted to say to him, “I am not just sad; I am angry.” I am angry at the NHS. I am angry at the MHRA. I am angry beyond belief at the National Institute for Health Research. It should be renamed the national institute for something that does not do very much at great public expense.
All these institutions are bedevilled by the desire to carry on doing what they have always done. It does not get them sacked. As the former Home Secretary John Reid—Lord Reid—constantly tells me, “Siobhan, nobody ever got sacked for continuing to do the same thing. You are only sacked if you do something different.” My God, has this morning not told us that we need to do something different? We have the tools to do something different, but the people in positions of power and responsibility choose not to. We have the best health system in the world for potential drug trials—a uniform system with well-trained doctors, great scientists, great universities and great hospitals—but do we do them? No. Do we fail people every single day? Yes. Do we threaten those doctors who try to do something different? Let me tell the House, groundbreaking oncologists are looking over their shoulder, waiting for the regulator to come and get them when one of their colleagues grasses them up. That is the atmosphere in our intellectual and health service institutions.
I could feel sorry for myself and for my loss, but I do not want that; I want things to change. All of us, from all parties, need to run fast and break things, and provide a challenge to the people running our systems. We have a drug repurposing project in the most universal health system in the world, so why are we not repurposing drugs for people with rare cancers? Why is that not being done for glioblastoma? Why is it that in May, we will open a drug trial at University College London and University College London Hospitals trust in Margaret’s memory to trial one such drug that has been in the system for years? We organised a dinner with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; some ran marathons; and others sold cakes and scones in beautiful Cornwall villages. Doing those things gave us a great deal, but why, under our system, do we have to do them?
Why is it that the trial in May, under the amazing Paul Mulholland, will be based in only one trust? It is because if we had negotiated with all the other hospital trusts that are experts in this field, it would have taken us two years to get started. Why are we outstripped by Israel, Spain, America and any number of countries? It is because we cannot get our act together to start a trial, as each hospital trust is arguing about and seeking to renegotiate every trial and every plan.
This is not new. The issue was raised by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his great report on clinical trials. That report is two years old, but we have made no progress. We made no progress under the former Conservative Government, and we have made no progress under our Government. The £40 million given to the National Institute for Health and Care Research in 2017 for glioblastoma and brain cancer drug trials has not been spent. Can any Member of the House explain to me how that is humanly possible? Do we not have drugs that we could trial? Yes, of course we do. Trials are not that complicated; we can do them if we choose to. We have the doctors to do them. We need to want to change.
I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because when she came to talk to me in the Tea Room this morning, she got this at a very fast pace. I have now met four wonderful cancer Ministers, two Conservative and two Labour. They have all been dedicated, and all wanted to sort this out, but we cannot do this by edict, or by hoping and wishing. Unless we change things and unless, I dare say, some people are removed, it will never happen. All the institutions I mentioned continue to exist because they do not do things differently.
Someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma will get the same treatment that they would have got 25 years ago. They will have their tumour removed. They will be delighted that it is gone, but it is not gone; it is coming back. They will be given eight weeks’ radiotherapy. It is brutal. It will help them for a while, but the tumour will come back. Then they get given chemotherapy— the drug is temozolomide, which was approved at the beginning of the 2000s. It will help, but the tumour will come back. They have to be able to withstand that drug themselves.
Margaret could not do that. By March, five months on from her diagnosis, she could not take it; her kidneys collapsed. What happens then? We had money and good friends. At this point, I would like publicly to thank Lord Waheed Alli for the kindness and friendship he showed us through Margaret’s journey. The treatment that he has experienced from the press is absolutely appalling. He helped us on our way. But what about somebody with no money who cannot fundraise? Their life ends at the chemotherapy. There is nothing on the NHS, but those lucky enough to have the money can find a way.
I am really grateful that the brother-in-law of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) is on the oncotherapy machine. My sister fundraised for that machine, because we had to go to Dusseldorf to have it, so we brought it here. It is great that he is receiving much benefit from it. I know that many other people are, too.
Why is the NHS, which is so risk-averse that it will not allow slightly alternative therapies for cancer, happy for people who are really ill to get on a plane and go to a different country? Is it because it does not see what happens in another country, so that is okay? I have told the stories of holding my sister’s head as she was sick in a bucket in terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, of carrying her on to a plane in the hope that the air stewardess would not see how she was, of lying next to her overnight hoping that she would be alive in the morning, because what was I going to do in a hotel in Germany, where I could not speak that language? That is my experience, but I am only one of thousands and thousands of people who do this every year, including children, because our system will not allow the use of novel treatments.
Why? Why can’t we change things? Why don’t we get up every single day and want to cure something? I do not know about other hon. Members, but since I joined the Labour party, and since I became an MP in 1997, I have got up every day and hoped that we could make things better in some way. I do not understand why our systems do not want to do the same thing. I want to understand, but it is beyond me. If there are drugs that could cure or give longer life to people with glioblastoma, why don’t we trial them? That is not beyond our ability. We have the money to do it. If we do not have the money, we will raise it. We just need the opportunity.
I do not know why we do not have that wish to achieve. I was given some hope yesterday by the proposed abolition of NHS England, because something needs to change. I do not know whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but we need to liberate people to do things. Let us face it: in the end, only people who are well motivated and willing to take a risk can change things. Beyond that, people will continue to die, will continue having to go to other countries, will continue having to spend large amounts of money. People not lucky enough to be in that position will just die prematurely.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill and for the courtesy he has always shown me, which must have been difficult at times as I sat shouting at him in Portcullis House about how everything was useless and hopeless. In my calmer moments, I understand that progress begins with small steps. I am frustrated that those steps are too small. I am delighted that there will be one database for trials, but if there are no trials, the database does not get us very far.
We will have a report on the orphan drug Act in 18 months’ time. In that period, over 3,500 people will have been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, and many of them will have died. Why is it going to take us 18 months? Why can’t we change things now? Why, in spite of the huge support we have had for the Bill from the Secretary of State for Health, could we not get something much more fierce in it? It is not a criticism; it is an observation. I know progress begins slowly, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West taking up the Bill and for having the calm demeanour that I lack, because I do not think the Whips would have accepted anything that I would have come up with as a private Member’s Bill.
We need a revolutionary attitude. We either see and harness progress, or we come back next year, the year after and the year after that to ask why there has been no progress. All of us, individually and communally, need to dedicate ourselves to that progress and to keep asking the questions, being angry and simply refusing to accept that nothing can be done.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because I have enjoyed working with them on the Bill. We all have our own stories. I should state my personal interest. My sister Georgie is sitting in the Gallery. She was diagnosed with a GBM—glioblastoma multiforme—nearly two years ago. I would like to say that she is alive and well, but let me just say that she is alive and she is doing well. She has been brave, determined and an inspiration to us all. It is particularly painful as she is a mother of three, a wife, a daughter and a sister. We have a lot to focus on, and it is on us collectively.
I will not rehash too much, and I will try to resist having a cry-fest, but it might be difficult. Our actions, and what we do as a team, are what we will be judged on. I am going to throw it over to the Labour side a little, because they are in government now and they have more power than we do in opposition. When we leave the Chamber today, I ask each Government MP to ask, “Okay, what are we actually going to do?” The talk in this Chamber is nice, but it is the actions that count.
I will pick up on two points. The first is the trial register. We have first-hand experience with Georgie of trying to find what trials are out there. Obviously, there are not enough trials; we know that, and that is something we need to fix. Also, matching patients with trials is not rocket science—that is a basic thing. I would also encourage the Government, rather than just starting from scratch and taking months to reinvent the wheel, to find out what is going on in the private sector and what trials and registers of people seeking trials are already out there, and to build on that. If there is a partnership with some company, that is fine, but let us move quickly, because speed really counts.
The second point is about orphan drug regulations. A key trigger for me getting into politics was Brexit. I thought it was a disastrous idea, and I still do. I struggle to find any possible gains from Brexit, but there is one thing that we could do. The EU has regulations on orphan drugs; ours could be more generous. We could pull research into the UK by giving patents for a few extra years, which would encourage people to dig into the research in these critical areas. I live in hope of that one potential gain.
Even if products are obtained, reimbursement has to be accessible on the NHS, which is far from certain. Ensuring that there is a robust, timely and accessible route to making these drugs available on the NHS for patients really counts. It is critical that that does not fall off the radar. Also, we are really falling behind in the number of clinical researchers active in the UK today. If we want to get this research moving, we must think about what we are doing to get clinical researchers working hard in this space and in others, because we are not doing a good enough job on that.
That is all I will say. Let me just return to my first point: we need action. It is good to have those in the Gallery here today.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill to the House, and join him in paying tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning, and for her powerful speech calling for a revolution in attitudes. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his very moving speech. As somebody who lost a brother much too young, I was deeply moved by his words.
I have come here today to speak on behalf of my constituent, Katie Swinburne. She is a much-loved school teacher—in fact, she was the school teacher of one of my staff—and a mother of three who was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. As was mentioned a moment ago, lobular breast cancer is not classed as a rare cancer—in fact, it is the second most common type of breast cancer in the world, with 8,500 diagnoses annually in the UK alone—but it shares many characteristics of rare cancers in the sense that it is very difficult to detect. In Katie’s case, as in many others, it did not initially form as a lump in the breast, for example. It has distinct genetics, so is not detectable in genetic tests, and it is very easily missed in mammograms and ultrasounds.
As a consequence, many of the women who get this form of cancer will not be diagnosed until long after it has already spread. I am also told—thankfully, Katie is watching today; I received a WhatsApp message from her a moment before speaking—that a key point that I should make to the Minister is that, because lobular breast cancer presents differently from other forms of breast cancer and is not separated out in clinical trials, there is very little trial data on it. I met recently on Zoom with Katie and others who have been campaigning for the moonshot. This is not a lot of money; it is simply £20 million of funding that the University of Manchester could use to better understand the biological architecture of this type of cancer. That would lead to the possibility of developing the right treatments, because it currently has no specific treatment. This is a gentle request, really, that in the next stage of the Bill lobular breast cancer be considered alongside the rare cancers for which it already provides.
I finish by paying tribute to Katie and all the many brave individuals I have met. I cannot imagine what it is like to be young and have parenting responsibilities and be diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer. Many of those campaigning know that they might not live to see the day when the better drugs and treatments are available, but they are bravely taking up this cause on behalf of those who come after them.
Katie was bravely doing a mile a day sponsored walks. My predecessor in this place joined her on one of those miles, and although we disagree about many things politically, we have already seen today that this is a cause that unites, because there is little—in fact, there is nothing—more precious in life for any of us than time spent with the people we love. Money cannot buy that—nothing can buy that—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made clear, the decisions we make in this place can have a real impact in the lives of others.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as I was waiting to speak, I was very pleased that you did not call me after the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) because I do not think I would have been able to get through parts of my speech so shortly after listening to his story; he did really well.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008, which is relatively unusual for a man, and the hardest thing I ever had to do was tell my two daughters, who were 13 and 14 at the time, about my diagnosis. It was an experience that left me wondering if our family of four was about to become a family of three. I had to explain to all of them that I would have an operation to remove a tumour and I might need another one. As things turned out, my cancer had spread and I did need to have another operation. I also had to say that I would need chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and that that was going to take nine months out of our lives—not just mine, but the lives of my immediate family, my wider family and our friends.
I consider myself very lucky that my treatment pathway was relatively clear, but that is not the case for many rare cancers. The reach of cancer is an evil that is growing across our society with nearly one in two of us projected to get cancer in our lifetime, meaning we all know someone close to us, whether family or friend, who will begin what can be a very traumatic journey. It is a fight that causes your life to be taken completely out of your hands, and that leaves families forced to hear rarely used terms like “malignant” or “metastasised” as if they were common expressions, clouding the horror of medical jargon.
It is with these words that I am proud to associate myself with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and I congratulate him on his campaign that demands better for cancer patients and especially on bringing forward the Rare Cancers Bill, because it is a powerful and necessary step forward to end the experience that I described at the beginning of my speech.
Rare cancers are often under-researched and the regulatory environment simply fails to cope with them. They have smaller patient populations which makes research and investment less appealing and an evidence base harder to achieve. Where clinical trials are taking place, patients often do not know very much about them. A Cancer52 survey of rare cancer patients found that 65% cited not knowing about trials as the main barrier to accessing the trial in the first place. The Bill seeks to rectify those flaws in our system, and I would like to highlight the powers it contains to ensure that patients can get better access and find relevant clinical trials. As was highlighted in the Teenage Cancer Trust’s “Improving Young People’s Access to Cancer Clinical Trials” report, it is also difficult for the clinical trial leads themselves to find the necessary patients, meaning that they struggle to recruit. Both patients and researchers want to be in those clinical trials, but the system does not allow for that common-sense joining up.
I hope that as a result of the changes made by the Bill, people in my constituency of Wokingham and across England will begin to see a shift towards prioritising rare cancers, because such a shift is long overdue. Last week, I met a constituent to discuss his wife’s cancer. She had leiomyosarcoma, which has an incidence rate of six cases per 1 million people annually in the UK. He explained to me that one of the potential treatment options for his wife is exploiting faults in the BRCA2 genes through PARP inhibitors. However, with an estimated 30 new cases of leiomyosarcoma every year and only three with the BRCA2 mutation, there are too few patients to allow for a sufficient clinical trial, and therefore NICE does not license those drugs for that particular cancer.
What are the Minister’s views on efforts within the European Union’s life science industry to develop clear guidance to make cross-border clinical trials easier? If that were to happen, it would address one of the major problems with rarer cancers such as leiomyosarcoma. Individual nations may not have a sufficient pool of patients to conduct a clinical trial, but multiple nations working together could. Does the Minister see cross-nation trials as having great potential for developments in oncology? If the EU were to advance easier cross-border co-operation, would that be something that the United Kingdom could potentially negotiate its way into? This is no time for a Government to be isolationist.
My constituent also highlighted that PARP inhibitors are available in the United States. What efforts is the Minister making to ask that if drugs are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, NICE has the opportunity to take the US evidence into account when considering whether to approve licences for drugs in the UK?
Sarcomas are just one tumour type that has poor survival outcomes and limited treatment options. Despite the investment by charities such as Sarcoma UK to fund research into new treatments, we do not know enough about the disease, because so few people are affected. Other constituents have written in to share their experience of losing loved ones to brain tumours such as glioblastomas and to blood cancers. All have expressed hope that this Bill will create a world in which we can better encourage pharmaceutical companies to run trials on rarer cancers in order to create innovative new treatments, so that the pain they went through will not be a fate that others must endure in future.
Before I conclude, it would be a missed opportunity if I did not ask the Minister about the national cancer strategy, which will be so important in ensuring that a long-term plan is in place to deliver better services for patients with rare and less common cancers. The NHS needs to be prepared for the innovations of the future by preparing for an increase in demand for companion diagnostics. The turnaround times for existing tests are already causing delays in optimal treatments. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is enough capacity for the ever-increasing demand for diagnostic tests?
The national cancer strategy needs to be thoroughly scrutinised before its final draft is published, to ensure that the measures demanded by cancer charities and patient groups, and ideas from by the life sciences sector, are properly covered. NHS performance must be measured regularly over the lifetime of the strategy to see if improvements are actually being made. Will the Minister explain what accountability mechanisms are being considered for the national cancer strategy?
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West once again for bringing the Bill to the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I know he has put a huge amount of effort into bringing the Bill before the House, in collaboration with many others, including patients, families, professionals and charities. I send my condolences to him, his wife and family on the death of his father-in-law, and to Tilly’s family. To lose a child is unbearable and against the natural order of things.
The Bill is much needed and I welcome the opportunity to make some observations about it. Before I do so, I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and his brother. I live in the area of Lunt that he referred to, where there is going to be a remarkable legacy for his brother: the area has been rewilded and there will be a forest there in due course, which is absolutely fantastic. I invite him and his family to come down—I will show them around and they can see the legacy that his brother has left us.
I also want to refer to comments made by the chief executive officer of the Brain Tumour Charity, Dr Michele Afif, about the context of the Bill and why it is before the House. In an online article last month, she wrote:
“During my clinical career I was frequently moved by the courage and determination of my patients and their families.”
It behoves all of us to support the endeavours of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to help those people who “don’t have a voice”, as Dr Afif says, by giving our unambiguous backing to what she calls “a Bill of hope.”
We must ensure that that hope is turned into reality: that is the job of every Member in the Chamber. We owe it to those affected by rare cancers to champion their needs, treatment and lives. The proposed legislation would be a starting point—a first base. It will enable and facilitate the promotion of research into rare cancers and better access to clinical trials, as has been said, and initiate a review of marketing authorisations for so-called orphan products, which I will explore in more detail.
It is devastating to have a cancer diagnosis. We all know family members who have been diagnosed with one form or another. The shock and trauma that comes with such news is hard to take in, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said. But then to find out subsequently that the spectrum of intervention with medicines or other allied interventions is limited because of the rare nature of a particular cancer surely adds to that distress and worry. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said, with glioblastoma, questions inevitably sweep through the minds of those affected as to whether an appropriate medicinal intervention is available or even on the horizon.
Orphan products are those drugs that are used to treat not only rare cancers but other rare diseases. The pharmaceutical industry is reluctant to develop the drugs because of the cost, time and effort when they will not be commercially productive, given the number of people who will use them. The fact that these potentially lifesaving, or life-changing, drugs are not produced leaves a significant lacuna in the treatment options for those with rare cancers. Although there is a public health need—of that there is absolutely no doubt—there is no resource to enable that lacuna to be filled. That resource should be made available.
I am therefore pleased that clause 1 of the Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to undertake a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for potential orphan medicines. I note that the Bill will require an assessment of regulatory approaches in other countries, which is also welcome. That is an excellent and much-needed step in the right direction, linked in with the other requirements in the Bill relating to research programmes and initiatives. It sends a clear and unambiguous message to those affected and those who will be affected—that could be anybody in this Chamber and, as we have heard, it is some people in this Chamber—that the Government have heard what they have said and are not only listening to that message and that plea, but are taking practical action to put it into effect, which is more than welcome.
Other countries have introduced similar legislation in this respect. The provision in clause 1(2) will help to form a more progressive, informed approach and its requirements will enable information, practices and protocols from other jurisdictions to be harvested. For example, Genetic Alliance UK points out that there are as many as 7,000 rare diseases—possibly more—affecting one in 17 people, with approved treatments available for only one in 20 rare diseases more generally. Although those are not significant cohorts of people per se in a particular disease category, collectively millions of people are affected in one fashion or another by a rare disease, including rare cancers—and it is no less the case for rare cancers: a disease is a disease, and those affected by it, whether it is rare or not, are entitled to equity of care and intervention.
In this case, such potential interventions cannot simply be left to market arrangements. That is why it is important to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to the development of orphan medicines, which must be set against the context of, for example, a 2022 survey of 61 orphan medicines that received EU approvals between 2018 and 2021. Of those, 36 orphan medicines were made available in England, compared with 55 in Germany, 50 in Italy, 48 in France and 31 in Spain. While those medicines do not specifically relate to cancer, that helps to contextualise the difference in numbers for orphan medicines.
A research programme between 2020 and 2025 at the University of Sheffield, funded by the Wellcome Trust, indicated:
“Furthermore, only a third of EU authorised orphan drugs are recommended by NICE… Thus, the medical needs of UK rare disease patients are potentially underserved compared to both the USA and EU.”
Indeed, the programme is called the Orphanisation project. Clearly, as the university puts it, there is a
“major international debate…currently ongoing about how we might improve patients’ access to orphan drugs, raising important questions about how to value these medicines, and the ethics of resource allocation”.
The project sets out a path for being creative in progressing the relatively new concept of orphanisation,
“as a way of understanding contemporary changes in the biopharmaceutical sector. Specifically, the project examines the extent to which orphanisation occurring in the EU, UK, and USA”,
and seeks to understand how it is informed by
“different technologies, institutions, and actors, addressing the implications for industry, health policy and patients”.
I look forward to the progress that it will make. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will help. They follow through systemically and consistently to change that scenario for the better. International explorations and comparisons are one method to inform decision makers about how they can be more proactive in facilitating access to medicines for those most in need of them, especially when the size and extent of the available medicinal range is limited. That is often the case with the rare cancers we are talking about, and rare diseases more generally.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for enabling the House to debate this issue and for the opportunity to tease out many of the issues affecting our constituents and, as I referred to earlier, to discuss crucial lifesaving and life-enhancing treatments for diseases more generally.
I again pay tribute to all those colleagues who have brought their stories and their experiences to us today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley and for Mitcham and Morden, the hon. Members for Wokingham and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and others. They deserve our admiration and thanks, but more importantly, they need our support to get the job done. That point has been made by so many. Such expositions, however painful for the Members concerned, bring home the real need for this House to act on this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death. Finally, I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through the House in the coming weeks, as no doubt do many others. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I am here today to support the Rare Cancers Bill, a vital piece of legislation introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I begin by paying tribute to his father-in-law and all those who have shared their stories here today.
My hon. Friend’s story, like so many, is a stark reminder of how aggressive and under-researched cancers can be, leaving patients with little or no hope. It is assumed that rare cancers, as has been mentioned today, affect a low number of people, but that is not the case. Cancer Research UK says that rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses and 55% of all cancer-related deaths. Some 82% of rare cancer patients are never even consulted about joining a clinical trial. That means that while each individual rare cancer may affect relatively few people, together they make up almost half of cancer cases, yet the funding and research remain disproportionately low.
I will briefly mention Charlie Shrager, one of my constituents in Gravesham. Like so many, she is fighting cholangiocarcinoma, or bile duct cancer. It is a supposedly rare but devastating form of liver cancer, and there is rising incidence. In 2001, 2.9 out of 100,000 people were diagnosed with it. In 2018, it was 4.6. Some 79% of these patients are diagnosed at stage 3 or stage 4, meaning that their likelihood of survival is limited. Histotripsy is a non-invasive treatment that uses sonic beam therapy. It is incredible. The problem is that we do not have a machine in the UK. They cost £10 million, and let us get one here, because for people facing this disease or pancreatic cancer, it is a lifesaver, and they desperately need it. As Charlie put it:
“I was lucky enough to afford treatment abroad, but I know many who aren’t. They don’t have that option. Why should their chances depend on their bank balance?”
We must recognise that “rare” does not mean “insignificant”. People across the UK are battling cancers that remain underfunded, under-researched and underserved by clinical trials, which is criminal. It is a pattern that is repeated again and again with bile duct cancer, glioblastoma, leiomyosarcoma—a rare soft tissue cancer that demands personalised medicine—pancreatic cancer and blood cancers. Each of these cancers devastates lives. We have discussed what the Bill can do: appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers, review and improve the UK’s orphan drug regulations, and improve data sharing.
As a research scientist in biochemistry, I worked on neglected infectious diseases and came across the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative. It was launched 25 years ago to co-ordinate research outcomes, negotiate with big pharma and test drugs that have been developed for other neglected diseases, and it is now eliminating diseases across the globe. It can be done—we have the blueprint—so I urge the Minister to reach out to that initiative to see what we can learn and implement here.
For too long, rare and neglected cancers have meant a rare chance of survival, and that must change. Given the strength of feeling among everybody here, there is the will to bring about change. I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward, and to seeing that people are not left behind and that we find a cure for everybody.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
We have already heard so much moving and powerful testimony in this debate, but despite the tragic impact that rare cancers have on people across the UK, they garner too little attention, are under-researched and lack investment in their treatment. Though cancer survival rates rose by nearly 10% between 2005 and 2020, rare cancers still have some of the lowest survival rates, leaving too many people without hope.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing this Bill. I will argue in favour of it today, using three examples: first, the story of a constituent suffering from a rare cancer; secondly, the importance of this Bill for extremely rare cancers; and, lastly, its importance for future research.
There are many rare forms of cancer that individuals suffer, often without specialised treatments or public awareness, but every rare cancer patient has a name and a story. Take that of a constituent I recently met in Parliament at an event for World Cancer Day, who suffers from T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia. Although the five-year survival rate for leukaemia currently stands at 55%, the figure for acute myeloid leukaemia, a rare and aggressive form, is one of the lowest of all cancers. It has a 22% survival rate beyond five years after diagnosis. This means that, sadly, nearly 80% of those diagnosed with AML today will not survive until the end of this Parliament. Surgery is not a viable treatment option for those diagnosed with leukaemia, so such patients often depend on the discovery of new and innovative treatments to survive the disease.
Though every cancer has a name and a story, some are so rare that there is little representation of them, even in debates like this. That brings me to my second example: composite hemangioendothelioma, or CHE. It was first medically identified in only 2006, and by 2022 had fewer than 60 cases reported in English-language literature. Because of its rarity, it is hard to treat and garners little attention from companies that could develop treatments. However, those affected by CHE have names, families and stories. Hopefully, my mentioning CHE in this debate may, in a small way, help raise awareness of its existence. This Bill will assist us in this matter, as it will result in the appointment of a named person who is responsible for overseeing the delivery of research into rare cancer treatments. That will facilitate some political accountability for rare cancer research and encourage an ecosystem that can hopefully lead to future treatments for, or at least more attention to, even some of the rarest cancers, such as CHE.
Talking of treatments, earlier this week, I met a constituent who is a researcher at the University of Glasgow. She was in Parliament for the STEM for Britain exhibition. We discussed her research on a novel approach to treating osteosarcoma. Although it is the most common primary bone cancer, only 160 people are diagnosed with osteosarcoma each year in the UK—fewer than three people in every 1 million of the population—making it a rare cancer under the Bill. Current treatments lack specificity in targeting the tumour and often have unwanted side effects. My constituent’s research looked at the potential use of small molecules to create a more effective and non-invasive treatment for osteosarcoma. The Bill’s support for information sharing in the research registry system will help researchers like my constituent. It will help with research and clinical trials by giving researchers greater access to the patient population with rare cancers like osteosarcoma. A patient survey in 2024 found that 82% of those with a rare or less common cancer were not offered a clinical trial. That is why the Bill is important.
The Bill will help to foster an environment in which there can be more research and clinical trials on rare cancers such as osteosarcoma. For patients like my constituent suffering from t-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia, for those diagnosed with the least-understood cancers, and for the researchers trying to find new treatments, the Bill represents a commitment to the fight against rare cancers. I therefore urge the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and the Bill today.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Those of us who have lost a friend or a family member to cancer will no doubt have heard them described—often, I think, somewhat unhelpfully—as courageous, but this morning we witnessed the most courageous exposition I have ever heard in my life from my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I thank him for the privilege of allowing us to listen to his loving tribute to his brother. We also heard from a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and for Witney (Charlie Maynard), and, most forcefully, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), about the pressure of time, and the urgent need to do something to find a cure or treatment for rare cancers. We have heard a number of moving speeches this morning, but I will allow hon. Members to relax and recharge their emotional batteries a little bit, because I will address the issue of time, and the practical considerations of how we can turn drug discovery into treatment as speedily as possible. To do that, I will lift the lid on our drug supply chain and set out the vital role that the NHS can play in it.
There are lessons we can learn from the covid pandemic when it comes to the drug supply chain. We very quickly developed a vaccine in the UK, in Oxford, but we saw quite quickly that the vaccine was worth nothing until it was in the arms of the population. Getting that done required a big effort, including in industry. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), industry is also important. The Fujifilm factory in Billingham in my constituency manufactured one of the covid vaccines, and it will shortly turn Billingham into the largest biopharmaceutical manufacturing centre in the UK. When it was making the vaccine, it found that it had a big problem. This brings into play another town, just up the River Tees from Billingham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth). Members may have heard of it—it became famous for a particular reason during the pandemic—but they may not be sighted on the reason why I will talk about it, which has more to do with glass than glasses. Barnard Castle is home to GlaxoSmithKline, which bottled the vaccines. There was, at the time, a global shortage of bottles for vaccines, and in the UK we have only one glass manufacturer capable of doing that job, although soon there will be another in St Helens.
Hopefully, after that little overview, Members can sense that there is a big industrial supply chain issue that we need to address before we can get treatments to the people who need them most. In fact, there are a number of researchers working on this area. I am sure that when we think of research into rare cancers, we think of people in white coats and laboratories in places like Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial, but I urge us to also think about the process operators in Billingham, the bottle fillers in Barnard Castle and the furnace operators in places like Glass Futures in St Helens, who are also working hard on research projects to deliver those treatments.
The second issue that I would like us to consider is the role that the NHS can and must play. I want to see a transformatively different approach from the NHS in this area. A month ago in Parliament, I met representatives of Pancreatic Cancer UK, which I know supports the Bill. They talked to me about pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, which is a treatment for pancreatic cancer, and about the difficulties in sourcing sufficient quantities of treatment. We all know from our constituency surgeries that there is the same issue with common drugs; people suffering with other conditions and people who have children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and so on are struggling to get the drugs that they need.
Part of the issue is that we rely so much on imports. We could be manufacturing these products in the UK. The NHS is the single biggest purchaser of drugs in the world; it has the market power to demand that production be centred in the UK. That would bring clear economic benefits to the UK, but it would also shorten cycle times for innovation, because the researchers and the manufacturers would be close to one another, and it would ensure security of supply in the UK. It would mean that we could be proud of manufacturing drugs that help to treat people around the world. It would also fit in with our industrial strategy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was talking only yesterday about the importance of life sciences to our industrial strategy, and about their creating British jobs in research and in factories.
I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. He described his father-in-law as a dignified man; my hon. Friend gave an incredibly dignified speech, and I am sure that his father-in-law will be very proud. We look forward to the days when people who suffer from rare cancers are not offered such treatments as breathing into a brown paper bag, as my hon. Friend described, or taking a paracetamol, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) described. Instead, we should use the power of our NHS and the efficiency of our UK supply chains to turn discoveries into drugs, and trials into lifesaving treatments.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill.
I remember the day my dad was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I remember my mum and dad picking me up off the floor. I was supposed to be supporting them, but that did not happen that day. Dr Lau at Blackpool Victoria hospital explained that my dad’s cancer was terminal. My dad was initially given chemotherapy to try to shrink the tumours and give us more time. Later, he was asked to take part in a trial using immunotherapy. It was explained that the immune system does not recognise cancer as alien and as a threat. Immunotherapy teaches the immune system to recognise cancer, and enables the body’s immune system to fight back.
My dad was a fighter and he was willing to try anything. His body struggled with chemotherapy, and after we nearly lost him twice in 12 months it was stopped, but the immunotherapy continued. He finished the course without any complications. Once my dad started the treatment, the cancers—there were many—never moved. To this day, we do not know whether the treatment cured him and he was left with just scar tissue, or whether the cancers lay dormant. What I can tell the House is that my dad did not die of cancer; it was something else that took him from us.
My family believe that we were given an extra three years of loving and being loved by my lovely dad because of immunotherapy. We will always be grateful for the Christmas days, the birthdays, the celebrations and sometimes the tears that we were all able to share with my wonderful, caring dad.
People with rare cancers deserve the funding and research trials that the Bill will initiate. They should have the chance of life that my dad was given. That starts with ensuring that patients can get better access to clinical trials. Many people miss out on potentially life-extending trials because there is just not as much information out there as there needs to be. Recent research has found that 82% of respondents with a less common or rare cancer were not offered an opportunity to be part of a clinical trial. That has to change, and the Bill would achieve that.
I support the Bill, because everyone diagnosed with cancer should be given every chance of survival. Without the Bill, people with rare cancers will die sooner than other cancer patients, not having been given the chance to fight this terrible disease. I speak for them, so that they can have the chances that were awarded to my dad. I thank Dr Lau, my dad’s consultant, for giving an 81-year-old man the precious gift of life for a few years longer.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. It may be the most repeated phrase in the Chamber, but politics is about choices and he, having ranked so highly in the private Member’s Bill ballot—an early accolade in this Parliament—chose a Bill that would put patients suffering from a rare cancer and their families higher up on the list of priorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) so movingly put it, I hope that, in time, the Bill will mean that in some instances, my constituents in Falkirk and families across the United Kingdom will get precious extra hours, days, weeks and years to spend with our loved ones.
Every Member of the House and every constituent I have spoken to about this has a story of a loved one who has suffered through the heartbreaking cruelty of a cancer diagnosis. I lost two of my grandparents in their early 60s. I still remember the seven years of my life that I spent with my grandad Robin. We found plenty of time to exchange robust views on football, and I am sure that if he had more time with us, we would today be exchanging views on life and politics, too. He was lucky, though, to meet all four of his grandchildren, thanks to the immense care he received from his doctors and the support he got from his family.
I remember my granny Janet, who passed away in 2012 after a 10-month battle with a brain tumour. I remember most fondly her fussing over everyone in the house to make sure they had absolutely everything they needed at all times. I remember holding her hand in Strathcarron hospice, where she had volunteered for a number of years, and where she received care in her final days. One thing I have drawn from those experiences is the value of our NHS and hospice staff to those who have cancer and their families. Those staff, day in, day out, take the worst parts of life and allow us to endure them. We should arm them with the best possible tools for treating illness and disease.
Statistically, half of us in the Chamber will have to comprehend our own diagnosis of some type of cancer. The definition of “rare cancer” is, for the purposes of the Bill, one that affects fewer than one in 2,000 people. We must acknowledge that active intervention is required to ensure that research, treatment and clinical pathways for those cancers have parity with other cancer research. As has been mentioned, rare cancers account for about 47% of all cancer diagnoses.
I will go through the Bill and each of its clauses to show why I support it. Clause 1 and the statutory requirement for a review relating to orphan medicines will be an essential step to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the availability of medicines and how they can best be calibrated towards new treatments and new research. The comparative approach that the Bill puts forward for the review acknowledges that while we have a proud history of world-class research, other countries have been able to make substantial strides in this area in recent years when we have not. In the last six years, the UK has dropped from being ranked second for the availability of orphan medicines—behind only Germany—to England being 10th and Scotland being 13th among European countries. That does not necessarily look like regression, but it potentially exposes stagnation in advancing research that would benefit those suffering from a rare cancer. The British pharmaceutical industry has stated that it is increasingly challenging to develop medicine for rare diseases in this country, citing, among other things, the low prospect of NHS reimbursement for rare disease medicines.
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State a duty to promote research on rare cancers, ensure that patients can be easily contacted about such research, and ensure appropriate oversight of rare cancers. That is a progressive move, as the duty to promote research will write into law that any Health Secretary must take a proactive approach to maintaining and promoting rare cancer research. It embeds in the Government’s job description a duty to ensure that ease of contact is properly facilitated, and that there is appropriate oversight. The Bill is not overreaching when it says that strategic co-ordination is key. The appointment of a national speciality lead for rare cancers will put into law the requirement for a champion who can cut through any silos that exist, or that start to develop as the Bill takes effect.
Clause 3 is a critical part of the framework. It will aid the building of a robust evidential basis for clinical trials by making a bespoke register for those with a rare cancer. The sharing of information from the national disease registration service by the NHS with the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” registry, so that patients can be identified and contacted, will improve an issue that has come up several times when I have spoken to organisations in this space: there are not enough people available for clinical trials for rare cancers. Correspondingly, as has been mentioned by other Members, clearly there is a substantial barrier at the patient end. Cancer52 found that 82% of those with a rare cancer had not been offered a clinical trial. That evidences the clear case for the change proposed in the Bill.
With rapid advances in cancer treatment, there is a massive opportunity to take steps forward in increasing survivability after diagnosis. For all these new treatments to be effective, there needs to be corresponding clinical trials. Currently, connecting those with a rare cancer to clinical researchers involves an amount of luck that the information about the trial will make its way to the patient or that they will be aware of a clinical trial. Organising the register so that clinical trials can get in touch with patients will simplify and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the system, saving time and increasing the chance of successful trials. I give the Bill my full support.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising this deeply important issue. I know that I speak for everyone here in finding his words about his father-in-law, and the story of Kira, very moving. I join him in welcoming Kira’s family. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning on this issue—her sister would be very proud of her. I also pay tribute to everyone who has spoken, for both their bravery and the immense bravery of their constituents and their family members.
I particularly want to recognise the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the story of Dan, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her powerful speech about her father, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for his speech about his grandparents. I give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn); I am so sorry that I did not get a chance to meet his brother Alex. He sounds like a phenomenal human being. I am so sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss, but I know that his brother would be very proud of him.
My heart goes out to those who have shared their stories. I thank them for their bravery. As so many stories show, the term “rare cancers” is misleading. The cancers we class as rare in total account for almost half of all cancer diagnoses each year, and as has been mentioned, tragically they account for over half—55%—of all cancer deaths. Given that, on average, one in two of us develops some form of cancer in our lifetimes, the chances of experiencing one of these so-called rare or less common cancers, or seeing them diagnosed in a loved one, are far higher than the term suggests. In the coming year, 182,000 people will be diagnosed with these types of cancers—equivalent to the population of a city the size of Swindon. Sadly, 92,000 people will lose their lives as a result—the population of a city the size of Chester.
Behind each one of those tragic statistics lies a story of families bereaved; of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children lost, and of lives torn apart. That was brought home to me when I visited Chai Cancer Care in my constituency to hear the stories of many people battling to live with cancer. Their bravery is inspiring and they need our help now. I commend the Government’s work to improve cancer outcomes for all. Last month they launched the call for evidence to inform the development of a national cancer plan, and I hope that we can pass the Bill to support those efforts.
Illnesses classified as rare or less common are among some of the very cruellest. The Bill seeks to address some of the fundamental reasons why diagnosis of a comparatively rare form of cancer can leave patients with a disproportionately lower chance of making a full recovery. For a start, rare cancers are harder to diagnose. There are many reasons for that. Some of the more common cancers have screening programmes, which means that many people are diagnosed before they have symptoms. Sadly, that is much less common in the case of rare cancers. Additionally, doctors see the symptoms of common cancers more frequently, and so are more likely to spot them. Also, currently, 82% of patients with a rare or less common form of cancer are not offered a clinical trial.
The Bill will seek to reduce the knowledge gap on rare cancers, proposing a national specialty lead for rare cancers to advise on research design and facilitate collaboration in rare cancer research, and a specific rare cancer registry to share information to improve the recruitment of participants for rare cancer clinical trials. However, although we need to incentivise research, it is not the only barrier that we face to improving rare cancer outcomes. The comparatively lower occurrence of many rare cancers mean that, although drugs to combat them often exist, for economic reasons they are not developed by the pharma industry, despite the pressing and urgent need for them. These orphan drugs have the potential not only to save thousands of lives but to provide hundreds and thousands of families with that most valuable thing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred: more time with their loved ones.
Under normal market conditions, pharma companies may be unwilling to invest in the research and development of new treatments for diseases that affect fewer people than the most common forms of cancer. The figures are stark: five of the six less survivable cancers received only 17% of the research funding for more survivable cancers. By proposing that the Secretary of State will be required to review the current laws on marketing authorisations for these orphan drugs, and by placing a duty on Government to support research and innovation further, the Bill would go a long way to achieving something that many of us would view as common sense: incentivising the production of these medical products and putting them to use where they are so badly needed in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of cancer.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and his team for the work they have done to improve the power of collaboration among Members of Parliament, the charity sector and patient advocates. Drawing on medical expertise and lived experience, their diligence in bringing about the Bill is borne out by the widespread support it has gathered across the House. According to Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Bill has the potential to transform survival for rare cancers by encouraging a greater focus and drive to research, and the Brain Tumour Charity has also praised it.
I know from my own experience, talking to constituents in Hendon and visiting hospitals such as the Royal Free, just how crucial one word can be: hope. Cancer is one of the defining health issues of our time, causing the death of 460 people in this country every single day. We know there is no silver bullet. We must fight cancer on all fronts, from research to prevention to diagnosis to treatment, and I know the Government are wholly committed to doing that. Thanks to huge oncological steps forward in recent years, outlooks for cancer patients have improved dramatically. We have reached the milestone of more than 50% of people diagnosed with cancer in England and Wales now surviving their disease for 10 years or more, yet this number falls sharply for many of the rarer cancers we have talked about today. We must recognise—as this Bill does—where the shortfalls are in our shared knowledge and the resources we put into the rarer forms of this disease. We have a duty to put this right. We must ensure that those suffering from rare and less common forms of cancer, and those yet to be diagnosed, have as much cause for hope as possible. I support this Bill.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill. I thank the many other Members from across the House who have contributed so movingly today, and my constituents who reached out to me to share their views. I will try to keep my contribution brief, because I know others will want to speak.
In particular, I would like to thank Maria and her daughter Lauren, who told me about Maria’s journey and her fight against leiomyosarcoma—I am the second person today to struggle to pronounce that word—and how that diagnosis, during the covid lockdowns, turned her life upside down. Navigating the pandemic was hard enough; navigating it while one of the people you love most in the world is suffering with cancer must have been nearly impossible.
Maria is still living with leiomyosarcoma and has chemotherapy once a month. As she and her daughter told me, living with cancer is tough enough; when it is a rare cancer, patients live with the fear that the disease will act quicker than the research makes progress. That is why this Bill is so important. We need to close the gap in the treatment so that more people diagnosed with rare cancers have the same chance of survival as those with other cancers.
Another constituent of mine knows the cost of that all too well. He has asked me not to share his or his wife’s name, but instead to tell her story. She passed away last year after being diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma. Despite the best efforts of the oncology unit, the rarity of the cancer meant that it took too long to identify her condition. A year of chemotherapy followed, sadly to no avail.
Although I have two examples of leiomyosarcoma in my constituency, it is incredibly rare. One challenge of that cancer is its genetic variability and the fact that it has many different subtypes. Personalised medicine is particularly important for rare cancers with different subtypes, but because of the small number of patients with leiomyosarcoma, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to run robust clinical trials. Research is possible, however, and great strides are being made in the US, showing that better treatment and outcomes are possible. It is vital that we incentivise research of and investment into the treatment of rare cancers and begin to close that gap.
I thank my hon. Friend again for introducing this important debate and the Bill.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. He has channelled his personal experience, and that of his family, to produce a vital piece of legislation. I hope that he succeeds in driving change on this issue. He certainly has my support and that of all Members of the House. It is on days like this that I call Members of Parliament from across the House my hon. Friends rather than hon. Members. This cause certainly unites us.
I know from reading emails from my Telford constituents that they are fully behind the Bill. I join my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the many people who have told the stories of loved ones in their families and communities—they are far braver than I. Next Thursday, I will be a bearer at the funeral of a woman who is very special in my life. I am not quite brave enough to tell her story today, but maybe one day I will.
I have heard about devastating impacts from a number of constituents who have contacted me to share their stories. I heard from one constituent about the mother of his three teenage children. She is in her 40s and battling terminal pancreatic cancer after a late diagnosis. Among those stories, a familiar theme arises: conditions such as pancreatic cancer are being diagnosed too late and there is no available treatment. My constituents’ loved ones are given just months to live.
I focus on pancreatic cancer because it is an example of the scandal of rare cancer treatment. It is classed as a rare cancer by the Bill because it affects fewer than one person in every 2,000. Every year, one in every 6,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and half of them die within three months. There are roughly 107,000 people in Telford, which means that 18 of my constituents will be diagnosed with that awful cancer each and every year, and nine of them will die within three months of diagnosis. That is absolutely shocking. I owe it to those 18 people in my constituency to speak up in the Chamber and demand drastic change.
It is easy to see how this problem can arise, although that does not make it any less galling. In a healthcare system under strain that is failing cancer patients in particular—last year, UK cancer survival rates were 25 years behind some other European countries—decision-makers might be faced with a Sophie’s choice: the unenviable task of prioritising cancer treatments. When resources are scarce, the treatments that will save the most people are prioritised, but that is no consolation to the 47% of patients in the UK whose cancers are rare and less common.
An even more damning statistic is that sufferers of rare and less common cancers make up the majority of cancer deaths, as we have heard—55%. Clearly, that is not sustainable, fair or just. We cannot let a single cancer patient slip through the cracks in our healthcare service, let alone 90,000 people each and every year. All too often, people in my constituency and across the country will, as we have heard, rally around to raise money for their loved ones—their children—to receive treatment. On one level, that is amazing to see, but on another, it is depressing that that has to be done in order for people to access lifesaving treatment.
The Bill is about acknowledging that we can do better. The treatment of rare cancer patients is a scandal—not in the sense that any one individual is liable or culpable, but because the system as a whole has let tens of thousands of cancer patients down. To the healthcare and research sectors, we say, “You must do better, we want you to do better, and we will work alongside you to do better.” The Bill is a welcome first step in doing that. I urge the Government to be bold. This cohort of Members of Parliament and Ministers can do a lot on this agenda. We talk a lot in this place about hope and change. Well, goodness me—what better example is there than this Bill of providing hope and change to millions of people across our country? Let’s make cancer history.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There is hardly a family in the UK who have not been touched by cancer in some way—this morning’s debate has shown how much we reflect the population—and the feeling of fear, anxiety and heartbreak that comes with it. But for those diagnosed with a rare cancer, the challenges are even greater: delayed diagnosis, fewer treatment options and the shocking lack of research, which means that these patients and their families are often left in the dark. I am glad that we are united in saying that that has to change. I am so proud to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur)—I think I possibly worked with his father-in-law at Bell Baxter many years ago—because we now have the chance to turn the tide and focus on people with rare cancers.
We have talked a lot about the statistics. Rare cancers still do not get the same investment in research or access to clinical trials as common cancers. As a result, survival rates for some of the least survivable cancers, like pancreatic cancer, brain cancer and stomach cancer, are stuck at just 16%, which is not good enough.
Seven weeks ago, I lost my dad. More time has now passed since his death than the time we had between his diagnosis and his passing. The grief is still exceptionally raw.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s dad. He would be extremely proud of her, and of the speech that she is making.
Katrina Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The Brain Tumour Charity and Brain Tumour Research have highlighted time and again that just 1% of national cancer research funding goes towards brain tumours, despite their being the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. That is totally unacceptable. People who are dealing with these devastating diagnoses need more than words; they need real investment in clinical trials and better pathways to diagnosis. The Bill is about fairness—it is about tackling the lack of funding, the difficulty in getting patients into research, and the absence of clear Government leadership in this area.
People miss out on life-changing trials because they simply do not know that they exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) talked about having a universal system in this country. We also have one of the most siloed systems. People in one part of the system often do not know what is going on in other parts, and we need that to stop. We have talked a lot about the approaches in places like the United States, where targeted policies have led to surges in new treatments for rare cancers. But we also need to recognise what else is going on in the United States: a raft of Executive orders from the White House is putting higher education and current clinical trials into a tailspin.
I want to pay tribute to the people who have helped me a lot over the last few weeks, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. She talks about being angry. I just remember that anger is a natural stage of grief, but it is also a massive driver for change and for getting things done. I am not at the angry stage just yet, but I will be at some point, and when I get there I will certainly be joining my hon. Friend; it is something we all get.
Somebody said to me many years ago that the greatest gift that any of us can give is the gift of time. No matter our political differences on other things, we have a chance today to give others the gift of time and to make sure no other families have to experience what we have had to go through. Please pass this Bill. Thank you.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill and for his tireless work in championing the need for a greater focus on research into rarer cancers. Having worked as a district nurse for over 25 years, I have seen time and again the devastation cancer brings, not just to those diagnosed but to their families, friends and communities. The harsh reality is that one in two of us will face cancer at some point in our lives; it is an issue that touches all of us in some way.
While we have made significant strides in cancer treatment and survival rates, progress has not been equal. Some cancers, like the rarer, less survivable cancers, have been unjustly left behind. Cancers such as pancreatic, oesophageal, liver, brain and stomach still face staggeringly low survival rates. Currently, the least survivable cancers have a five-year survival rate of just 16%, compared with 55% for all other cancers. This disparity is not just a statistic; it is a failure in our services and the way these cancers are researched, which has cost lives, shattered families and left too many of us without hope.
A key driver of this has been the chronic underfunding and lack of focus on research into these cancers, which has meant that we lack tests and the tools and treatments needed to give people a fighting chance. The consequences of this neglect are devastating.
This issue is deeply personal to me. I have lost loved ones to pancreatic cancer, a disease that steals lives with ruthless efficiency. I lost my best friend, a woman full of life and love, to this cruel illness. She endured months of uncertainty before finally receiving a diagnosis in August, only to pass away shortly after. Her story is of delayed diagnosis, missed opportunities and a system that failed her. Sadly, her story is not unique. I find it truly shocking that in 2025, more than half of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will die within three months and only 7% will survive.
Pancreatic cancer is the fifth biggest cancer killer in the UK but receives only 3% of the UK cancer research budget. This lack of investment has meant we are not seeing the treatment breakthroughs that have transformed outcomes for other types of cancer. It does not have to be this way. We know that sustained research funding and strategic focus from the Government can dramatically improve survival rates—we have seen it work for other cancers. I particularly welcome the Bill’s proposal to nominate a named lead to focus on these rarer cancers, ensuring that they are no longer overlooked, as well as its provisions to give people a better opportunity to take part in innovative, cutting-edge trials. That is why I support the Bill.
The Rare Cancers Bill offers a road map to bring real-life, lifesaving changes to those diagnosed with life-threatening diseases. It is not just about policy, but about people; it is about giving hope to those who have been left behind. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the less survivable cancers and vice-chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I firmly believe that through the provisions of this Bill, we can start—I say start—to bring forward access to innovative treatments that could turn the tide. I say to Members of this House, “Let us be bold. Let us make a difference. Let us ensure that future generations have a better chance of survival than those who came before them. Let us send a clear message to patients and their families that they are not forgotten. This is our moment to make a lasting impact—let us make it count. Let us support this Bill.”
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill and for his work in bringing about this necessary debate on rare cancers. I also pay tribute to all Members who have spoken today, but particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his heartbreaking tribute to his brother.
Like too many across this House and throughout the United Kingdom, I have been on the receiving end of the devastating news that a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer, but when that cancer is defined as rare, it is infinitely more terrifying, when confronted with the reality that there is a lack of funding and research dedicated to those cancers. I therefore welcome the three steps in the Bill to encourage further research into rare cancers. I welcome the fact that it will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to facilitate or otherwise promote research into rare cancers. The Bill will ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for patients to be easily contacted about research opportunities and clinical trials, and will also ensure that there is adequate oversight of research delivery for rare cancers.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her dedication in bringing glioblastoma and other types of brain cancer to the forefront of the political debate. I would like to mention the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours and its work to raise awareness of the issues facing the brain tumour community. I have seen at first hand how devastating glioblastoma can be: my dear friends and constituents, Ann and Richard Lucas, lost their son Fionn in 2022. Fionn was diagnosed with glioblastoma aged 58 in June 2022, and his cancer left him with a very short time to live—he died two months later. The Lucas family has supported the work of the Brain Tumour Charity to help find new treatments, offer the highest level of support and drive urgent change, given the charity’s aims of saving and improving lives and carrying out research into brain tumours globally.
Glioblastomas are fast-growing brain tumours. They are the most common type of cancerous malignant brain tumour in adults, yet as has been said, there is still a lack of funding. Of the 54% of research that is specifically about rare cancers, only 16% is focused on brain and nervous system cancers. I therefore welcome this Bill, thank my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West and for Mitcham and Morden, and place on record my support for the aims of the Bill—to support research, and to support those impacted by rare cancers.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief as I am keen that other colleagues get to speak in this important debate. As we have heard, rare cancers are defined as those that affect fewer than one in 2,000 individuals; in Hyndburn, that equates to an estimated 1,500 people being impacted. Behind every number is a story, as we have heard, of a patient and those who love them, of lives cut short that could have been saved or prolonged had the right diagnosis and treatment been available.
I want to spend a few minutes speaking about constituents in Hyndburn who have reached out to me and about some of my personal experience. I am grateful to Carol who reached out on behalf of herself and her daughter Emma, who is battling a rare cancer and is the mum of two girls. Every day, and every advancement, could be transformational for that family. I thank Janet, who lost her granddaughter Elizabeth, for also reaching out. Elizabeth was a real fighter; she raised over £100,000 before she died, and she left her body to research, demonstrating what individuals are doing in this fight. It is now the Government’s turn to step in and meet what has already been put in by families and communities.
I want to thank Sheila, who sadly lost her sister Margaret and her father-in-law to pancreatic cancer. I also want to mention Milly, the incredible young girl who died of leukaemia when she was just 11 years old, not 18 months after being diagnosed. Her mother Lorraine always reminds me to talk about Milly’s life and what she brought while she was with us. She should have turned 16 last year, but she was the girl with the brightest smile who took on life and everything it threw at her and who was brave to the last. We owe it to the memory of Milly and her mum’s incredible work with their charity Milly’s Smiles, to do all we can to tackle this in future and to take action today.
When I was in my late 20s, one of my best friends lost both her mother and her sister within a year, one to melanoma and the other to ovarian cancer. The reality is that if they had been living in America, for at least one of them, if not both, we would have had more time. That is not good enough; I refuse to accept that, and today we can take steps to ensure that people like my friend do not have to be left literally with none of their family and can have that precious time, however long that might be, because every day, week and birthday really counts.
The Rare Cancers Bill represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the disparities faced by individuals with rare cancers. By revising the regulatory frameworks, promoting dedicated research and facilitating patient participation in clinical trials, this legislation has the potential to transform the landscape of rare cancer treatment in the UK. I am glad that this Labour Government are supporting the Bill as part of the development of the desperately needed national cancer plan, recognising that the provisions of the Bill are a crucial step towards equity and excellence in cancer care for all patients, regardless of the rarity of their diagnosis.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing forward his important Bill. I also commend hon. Members across this House for their powerful and moving speeches, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who showed that the love for a sibling or child persists forever and can be harnessed to bring about change.
I am speaking today because my constituent Mr Peter Realf contacted me about his son Stephen, who was training to be an RAF pilot when he was diagnosed with astrocytoma. He was just 19. Tragically, despite his cancer being described as “low-grade” and despite receiving treatment that prolonged his life, he died six years later, aged just 26. I cannot imagine the pain and sense of loss felt by Stephen’s family and friends, and my heart goes out to them and all those who have faced the consequences of this cruel disease.
Mr Realf and his family have campaigned tirelessly since Stephen’s death to address the baffling paradox that despite brain tumours killing more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer, and despite them robbing patients of more years of their life than any other cancer, only a fraction of the Government’s research funding into cancer is used for brain tumours at just 1.37% of national spend, according to the charity Brain Tumour Research.
Stephen Realf’s case is stark: a talented, hard-working and clearly impressive young man who died young, losing perhaps 50 years of life and 50 years of potential. A huge public petition and an article written by Stephen’s sister Maria led in 2015 to the then-new Petitions Committee of this House conducting its first inquiry. I challenge any right hon. and hon. Member to read the report’s conclusions from 2016—nine years ago—and not to conclude that, in general, little has improved since then.
We should be deeply concerned—though perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has indicated, the appropriate emotion is a stronger one. We hear of the additional £40 million pledged by the last Government and how, according to reports, £28 million of it is yet to be released to scientists. After one of the relevant authorities, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, came to see us at the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours recently, my colleagues and the campaigners, patients and families present still could not fathom just why the money had not been spent in all those years.
I am relatively new to this place, but I have been observing politics for a long time, and something about this issue does not fit. It does not feel right. Something is profoundly wrong. Where there should be outrage, there appears to be relative indifference—not to death and suffering, of course, but to the need for radical changes to get money flowing. Where there should be urgency among the authorities—for, after all, people are dying, often young—there appears to be a degree of inertia, and where there should be action, we often get lost in the chilling snowstorm of bureaucracy.
I am not impugning the decency, compassion or professionalism of officials, researchers or clinicians; they are of course committed to helping to cure, treat and prevent cancer. However, as with other examples of institutional failure, it does not take overt malice, just the absence of grip and tenacity in the face of injustice, or of challenging the status quo, for good things not to happen, or even for bad and preventable outcomes to occur.
I do not know why progress does not seem to be happening. What reasons could there possibly be for the continuing paradox of the underfunding of rare cancer research? We must find out the reasons and overcome those forces, or perhaps even vested interests, because the stakes could not be higher. Little has changed in terms of treatment and survivability since the 1960s. Patients with brain tumours do not have time on their side, as many hon. Members have said; sadly, most of those diagnosed die within five years.
The following statistics from Brain Tumour Research are stark, but, before I read them, I should say that I am glad of the progress on more common cancers, which have affected my family as they have every family. Brain Tumour Research states:
“Brain tumours kill more children than leukaemia. Brain tumours kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer and more women under 35 than breast cancer. Incidences of and deaths from brain tumours are increasing… At the current rate of spending, it could take 100 years for brain cancer to catch up with developments in other diseases and find a cure.”
That is why the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is so needed. It offers practical steps to get more funding into research to take on and defeat those cancers.
Finally, I know my ministerial colleagues want only the best for patients, so I gently encourage them, if they have not already done so, to ask this question of officials: “Why is it that research into these cancers, which cause so much death and suffering among the young and rob so many people of so many years of life, are receiving so little funding?” Ministers should keep asking until they get a satisfactory answer. MPs should keep asking until we get a satisfactory answer. We should work together, cross-party if possible, to overcome obstacles and we should certainly pass this Bill. The pain, loss, concern and even anger must be channelled into urgent, substantive action. We owe it to the past, current and future victims of rare cancers and to their families.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this Bill. If, as we always say, politics is the language of priorities, then my hon. Friend has got his absolutely correct. I thank all Members who have shared their experiences and their stories, some incredibly moving. They should be what inspires us to take forward all the action we are proposing today.
I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and I have something in common, which we probably would not want to have in common, in that we were both diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. I have to say, my breast cancer was a strange breast cancer, and it always feels slightly strange talking about it, because no one’s ever heard of it. It is not a rare cancer as such, because it is a breast cancer, although there are some who argue it is actually a soft tissue sarcoma—whatever, it was treated as a breast cancer. It is called a phyllodes tumour.
Unlike other breast tumours, phyllodes tumours do not go into the ducts, but into the connective tissue. It presents differently from other cancers of the breast, and the treatment is also different, in that the only treatment that works is excision. Excision can be anything from a lumpectomy to a mastectomy. The hope is that there are clear margins, which mean the patient will be okay, but—and it is a big “but”—when a malignant phyllodes tumour is present, it can spread, and it can be difficult or impossible to treat. That is when it becomes a very different outcome.
I mention it today not because it is a rare cancer, but because it can be difficult to diagnose. It does not show up in a mammogram, for example, and there is no definitive explanation why such tumours occur. Some research is going on just now, but it is not conclusive as yet. A lot more work needs to happen, and because incidence is so low, it is difficult to research. The things we know about it for certain seem random to me. They tend to occur more often in the left breast. Why? I have no idea. They usually occur when a patient is in their 40s. As I have said, they do not seem to respond to chemo or radiotherapy, and they are not thought to be genetic or hormonal.
The reason I mention my case is that it can be a lonely thing to have an unusual cancer. When trying to explain it to family and friends, you say, “No, it did not show up in a mammogram. No, I am not getting chemotherapy or radiotherapy. No, I do not know why it happened. No, I had not heard of it either.” You begin to doubt yourself a little, and you begin to question what is actually going on. For someone with a very rare cancer, it must be incredibly difficult when there is not a background of research, not anything that they can read, and no one can give them a pamphlet about it and tell them what is happening.
It seems to me that we should know more about cancer full stop. We have got to 2025, and we know some things about cancer. We know how to treat some cancers, but there are so many others that we do not have the answer for. We need people to be diagnosed more quickly, which means that we have to have the research. We need people to have the best possible treatment, which means we have to look at the drugs and find out what works and what does not work, and where a drug can be transferred from one thing to another successfully. Crucially, we have to know why it is that some people get cancer and others do not.
This Bill will make a huge difference to the lives of some of the people we have heard about today. For some, as we know, it will not be soon enough. It is the responsibility of every single one of us to make change happen, and we have an opportunity today to take that step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her sister, Margaret, who I worked with for a time in the Labour party. While I was listening to the other speeches, I was reflecting on what my hon. Friend said. I think we all need to be angry. We need to say—to shout it from the rooftops—that change begins today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was very powerful. I call Leigh Ingham.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am proud to share the Benches with all the hon. Members here. The advocacy that we have heard has been incredibly moving. My constituents Rosalind, Rob, Mark and Michelle asked me to speak today; they support the Bill, as do I.
Patients with rare cancers face incredible challenges, including delayed diagnoses, limited treatment options and a lack of research investment that often leaves them feeling forgotten. This Bill will change that narrative. It is a call to action for greater investment, better access to clinical trials and a stronger commitment to research that will ultimately save lives. Barriers and bureaucracy must not stand in the way of innovation. That is why I support the measures in the Bill that call for a comprehensive review of how we approve treatment for rare cancers. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that more powerfully than I ever will.
The Bill is about fairness, dignity and hope. It has significant support from hon. Members across the House, not just as politicians but as people who understand the value of every life. I hope that we all get to vote for it today.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for their moving, passionate and powerful speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing forward the Bill and on the work he has done with so many stakeholders. I commend him on sharing the story of his father-in-law, who will be sadly missed by him and his family.
The story of my hon. Friend’s father-in-law has prompted a significant number of my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith who are advocates for the Bill to share their stories. A constituent told me about their friend, who passed away aged 45 in November 2023. They were diagnosed with two rare cancers. On each occasion, they were informed by their doctor that it was a cancer that they did not know how to treat. My constituent’s friend tragically died unable to understand why more was not known about those rare cancers, despite the large amount of money that has been put into research and the wins achieved in cancer care and treatment by scientists and medics over the past few decades.
In Edinburgh, many cancer patients are treated at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre at the Western general hospital, which borders my Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. Established in 2022, the Cancer Research UK Scotland centre brings together the very best in cancer research from Edinburgh and Glasgow, working with over 80 teams. The centre has established processes, and has access to two of the largest cancer treatment centres in Scotland, making trials and research more efficient. One of the centre’s six research themes is mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, abdomen or heart. I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West about his engagement with the University of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre on the Bill.
The Bill crosses devolved and reserved areas. I believe in pooling and sharing resources. Just as profit should not be a barrier to research, neither should the border at Gretna. I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend or the Minister about any discussions that have taken place with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure that we work across the UK, and use the research talent of the University of Edinburgh and others across the UK. We need a joined-up approach to make breakthroughs on the treatment and care of those with rare cancers. Has there been dialogue with Ministers in Scotland and other devolved Ministers on clauses 2 and 3? Have devolved Ministers given any undertakings to replicate the proposals?
In conclusion, the Bill will make a difference to our constituents, and I am delighted to speak in support of it. My mum Violet died two decades ago within six weeks of her cancer being diagnosed. I hope that the Bill will give hope and time to every family impacted by a cancer diagnosis.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. Many of my constituents have shared with me their experiences of rare cancer, and the experiences of their families and friends. Rare cancers make up almost half of cancer diagnoses, so the Bill is very much welcome.
A constituent wrote to me recently about their seven-year-old son, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a rare form of brain cancer. Sadly, their son did not survive, despite that cancer having a 75% survival rate. Medulloblastoma is on a spectrum of high to low risk, which further complicates ability to predict the outcome of treatment. I am here to represent that child, their family and other families affected by rare cancers. I welcome the increase in research, funding and support for early detection and diagnosis. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and wholeheartedly support it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I will be brief, because I understand that we are at the end of the debate, but I rise to support the Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing it forward, and for the dignified, collegiate manner in which he has gone about things. Up to 95 people in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will be facing a less survivable cancer. That is 95 people who will wait longer for a diagnosis, will face a postcode lottery to access specialist treatment, and will be left asking why there are so few treatment options available.
The truth is that rare cancers do not receive the research attention or funding that they need. The Bill would take decisive action to change that. It would introduce measures to break down systemic barriers preventing research and innovation in rare cancers. These are not abstract policy changes but lifesaving reforms that would give patients with rare cancers greater access to clinical trials. Researchers would have better tools to study the diseases, and pharmaceutical companies would be given stronger incentives to invest in treatments that could transform lives.
Behind every rare cancer diagnosis is a person fighting for their future, a family searching for answers and healthcare professionals looking for better treatment options. We cannot allow those individuals to be left behind simply because their condition is considered rare. We have the opportunity to change that. By supporting the Bill, we send a clear message that no cancer is too rare to matter, and that no patient should be forgotten. I am proud to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend for bringing it forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
May I start by extending to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and her family my sincere condolences on the passing of her father?
This is an important Bill. I often say to constituents, “If you wish to see the House of Commons at its best, tune in and watch on a Friday.” I say that again today, having heard the debate. It is it is rare for a shadow Secretary of State to take to the Front Bench on a Friday to respond on a private Member’s Bill, but the debate has reinforced my determination to be here.
As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said—I like to call him my hon. Friend—this is a Bill of hope. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his clear and compelling articulation of the case for the Bill, and for being willing to share something as personal as the loss of his father-in-law and his family’s circumstances. He spoke about that with great dignity.
With a debate of such quality, it is always invidious to pick out contributions, but I cannot resist doing so. I have to pick up the contribution of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). When I was a Minister, we often worked with each other and spoke on matters relating to health, although not this subject. Her passion, determination and energy for change and for something better comes across in everything she does, and that builds on the fact that this is a Bill for hope. I pay tribute to her for her work and her dedication.
I have been a Member of this House for 10 years, and before the election I was a Minister for six. Two and a half of those years were spent as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, in times that were challenging for everyone, but I have to say that I have rarely heard a speech as powerful and moving, or that held the House so completely, as that of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). Although I did not know his brother, I suspect that he would have been deeply proud of the hon. Member today.
“Rare” in this context is often a misnomer, because although individually these cancers are rare, collectively they are sadly all too prevalent. As we have heard from hon. Members, approximately 55% of all cancer deaths are down to so-called rare cancers. The breadth of those rare cancers is huge: they include blood cancers, cancers of the female reproductive organs, head and neck cancers, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke about glioblastomas—and, importantly, children and young people’s cancers, which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about.
We have all seen the amazing work by powerful campaigners on these issues and by the huge array of charities campaigning in this space: Cancer52, the Brain Tumour Charity, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Leukaemia UK, Pancreatic Cancer UK and a whole range of other dedicated and amazing institutions. They do a fantastic job. Like other hon. Members, I recently met Pancreatic Cancer UK to hear about its work; the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) may well have done the same. Initially, it was to discuss pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy drug shortages and the urgent need for some sort of solution, but we also had the opportunity to talk more broadly about pancreatic cancer and rare cancers.
Pancreatic Cancer UK highlighted issues that are specific to pancreatic cancer but that I suspect are reflective of many rare cancers: the challenge of diagnosis, the challenges posed by late diagnosis, the reliance on a single therapeutic or a small number of therapeutics with complex supply chains, and the challenges of clinical trials. Sadly, so few people with pancreatic cancer, even when they are able to enlist on such trials, survive long enough to provide the data that will make a real difference. The Bill will help to address that.
Because each rare cancer is different, each rare cancer needs focused research and treatment. The hon. Member for Bootle set out clearly the orphan drugs regime for rare cancers. Yes, there are incentives; under the 2021 regulations it is possible to incentivise pharmaceutical companies that may not be inclined to invest in research in areas that may benefit only a few, in comparison with the large numbers affected by other cancers. The regime seeks to give market exclusivity rights for 10 years, helping to reduce the costs of market authorisation, but we have to ask the question that the Bill asks: is it actually doing the job it needs to do to genuinely incentivise companies to invest in research in this space?
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the NHS repurposing project. If we make it work effectively, it will be a very practical way in which, while we wait for specialist research to come through, we can still do something. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards addressing the issues. The review of the orphan drugs regime, particularly the international angle, is hugely important. I welcome all the provisions in the Bill, especially those on the specialist registry and on the sharing of information to get more people into trials. As with any Bill, there are some things that I believe would benefit from further explanation, but that is what Committee is for. As shadow Secretary of State, I am happy to confirm that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has our support for the passage of his Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.
In this place and in life, there is a time to act. I believe that this is it. We have huge potential and huge talent in this country. Let us help focus that on saving more lives and giving more precious time to more people. I am pleased and proud to offer my support to the hon. Gentleman for the passage of his Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
First, let me say how sorry I was to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) recently lost his father-in-law to glioblastoma. I congratulate him on introducing this legislation less than a year after his election. His wife and children will be immensely proud to see him in the Chamber today. He has the full support of many charities, such as Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Brain Tumour Charity and Cancer Research UK, as well as people up and down the country who have written to their MP urging them to join this debate and vote for the Bill.
I also pay tribute to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have lost loved ones and remembered them so powerfully today. I thank them for the courage that they have shown in sharing their stories. Particularly, I do not think that anyone in this Chamber or watching from the Gallery or beyond could have failed to be moved by the powerful stories from my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), to whom I give particular thanks for her tireless campaigning on glioblastoma following the untimely loss of her sister Margaret.
I also pay tribute to those who remembered their constituents. I am delighted that very soon I will be meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) and Lorraine to discuss Milly’s Smiles. Let me take the opportunity to add my memories of Joe Chilcott, the son of my friends Tim and Verity and sister to Ellie, who was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 10. It was heartbreaking to lose him when he was just 18.
I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken today. I will seek to address as many of the issues raised as possible. There were so many stories. I recognise the people who were remembered in those stories, those in the Gallery, and the many more watching at home. They are willing the Bill to succeed. On behalf of the Government, it is my great pleasure to pledge our support for the Bill. We are undertaking fundamental reform of the NHS. People living with rare cancers must be at the heart of that change. Rare cancer patients deserve better, and the Bill gives them something that has been spoken about across the House today: new hope.
Let me begin my remarks on what the Bill will do, why we support it and our policy on rare cancers more generally. Clinical research is one of the most important ways in which we can improve healthcare, by identifying the best way to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. The Bill will encourage the placement of clinical trials for rare cancer in England, by ensuring that the patient population can easily be contacted by researchers, streamlining the recruitment process. It will also ensure a Government review of regulations relevant to orphan drug designation, to ensure that they continue to deliver for patients. Innovations in the Bill will complement the radical actions that we are developing through the 10-year health plan and the national cancer plan to fix the NHS, on which I will expand later.
Research is a key part of this effort, which is why the Department of Health and Social Care, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, invests more than £1.6 billion a year in health research. In 2023-24, the NIHR invested £133 million in cancer research. As we have heard, rare brain cancers such as glioblastoma have a devastating impact on people and their loved ones. That is why the NIHR announced in September 2024 a new package of funding opportunities for brain cancer research, and established in December a new national brain tumour research consortium, bringing together researchers from a wide range of different disciplines. That is in parallel with a dedicated funding call for research into wraparound care and the rehabilitation and quality of life of patients with brain tumours. We remain committed to accelerating new breakthroughs in high-quality research to drive improvement in the diagnosis, management and treatment of brain and other rare cancers, for better survival rates and patient outcomes.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and others asked how the £40 million promised for brain tumours has been spent. In the five years since 2018-19, the NIHR has invested £11.3 million directly in brain cancer, with a further £31.5 million to enable brain tumour research in 227 studies involving 8,500 people. The commitment remains in place. I can confirm that there is no upper limit on that funding. We are exploring additional research policy options to encourage more clinical trials in early phase research and the development of medical devices and diagnostics.
We have also talked a lot about other rare cancers, including lobular breast cancer, for which we are supporting research through the research infrastructure, including biomedical research centres. We welcome further funding applications for research on all conditions, including lobular breast cancer. We continue to consider whether abbreviated forms of breast magnetic resonance imagining —fast MRI—can detect breast cancers that are missed by screening through mammography, such as lobular and the other types of breast cancers that have been mentioned. We are also supporting the opening of 171 studies on blood cancer, providing an online registry called “Be Part of Research”, which allows users to search for and participate in studies relevant to them.
Clinical trials are a crucial part of cancer research. They provide patients with early access to groundbreaking and possibly lifesaving treatments. The measures in the Bill align strongly with our commitment to that, and aim to streamline clinical trial recruitment processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke passionately about how long it takes trusts to negotiate contracts. We recognise that issue and are beginning to make progress. NHS commercial contracting has been standardised, and the national contract value review has reduced study set-up times by 36%, from 305 days to 194 days in the first 12 months’ analysis. We continue in that work.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) asked how we are working across borders. We are taking forward the most significant reform of UK clinical trial regulations in over 20 years, while maintaining robust protections and safeguarding for clinical trial participants. The MHRA already authorises cross-border clinical trials, including those conducted in the EU and on UK-based trial sites. The “Be Part of Research” programme uses information from national and international sources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke so passionately—we have all commented on her passion and anger. I appreciate her frustration and share her desire for radical action. I think we can all agree that the Government’s announcement yesterday on scrapping NHS England demonstrates our willingness to be bold, take risks and do things differently.
Members raised several other matters. I will come back to them all with more detailed information on those issues, but I do not have the time to do so today. I will address the national cancer plan, however, which was raised a number of times. It is really important to fulfil our goal of transforming cancer care, and we will not just cherry-pick the most common cancers; we need a rising tide that will lift all ships. As a person who is living with an incurable cancer myself, I cannot overstate how deeply I feel the honour and responsibility of being asked to drive forward our work in creating the national cancer plan—it is my absolute honour. But while we take strides to fix cancer services, I am under no illusion that the Government or I hold all the answers, so my plea is for hon. Members to work with us and share their expertise. I ask them please to visit “Shaping the national cancer plan” on the Department’s website and to contribute evidence.
The Government are committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers. For those affected by this devastating disease, every discovery, every treatment and every moment matters. We will do all we can to facilitate the passage of this Bill here and in the other place.
Dr Arthur
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank a few people. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for her speech. I met her yesterday, and she was filled with genuine passion, energy and excitement for this subject. It is great to see her come here today and use her power to support this Bill, and let us hope that it passes.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar). Before this debate, people told me that he was respected across the House, and he has shown why. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). People in the Gallery will not know this, but he has worked really effectively, right throughout the debate, to ensure that all the people who wanted to speak could do so. I thank him for that.
I thank the Whips and the Speaker’s Office for managing the debate sensitively, because this is quite a difficult subject, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was you who pulled my ping-pong ball from the goldfish bowl. It was very skilfully done.
I wish I had time to thank everybody who spoke in the debate. Sadly, I do not, but they have my thanks and respect. They have done a great job of thanking each other as the debate has proceeded, so I thank them all. I will watch the debate again over the weekend, because it has been quite incredible and quite moving.
I thank our colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care, who are in the officials’ box. They have been fantastic. Without them, this Bill would not have happened. Privately, there have been a few Sir Humphrey moments, but those from the Department have been absolutely fantastic, and that was very clear yesterday when I met the Minister.
I thank the charities that backed the Bill. They did not just back it; they helped get it to where it is. They were not just backing a finished product; they influenced and shaped it. I think that is why so many people are here to support it.
I thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their patience and so much more, and I thank the staff in my office. I think Noel and Solomon are here today, but it is a team effort. Back in Edinburgh are Lucie, Salim, Xavier, Evie and Hannah. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They deserve that.
In all the contributions today, we have heard evidence that people with a rare cancer diagnosis face great injustice, because their chances are so much slimmer and they face so much uncertainty. We have shown that we want change. We are not just being angry; we are using that anger to get even, which is really important. We talk in this Chamber, but often there is no action. Today we have talked and agreed, and hopefully there is going to be action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was most definitely Parliament at its best.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Rare Cancers Bill (Money)
Monday 30th June 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rare Cancers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill. The Government support it, and are committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Just a quick one—I had hoped to speak to the Minister before she came to the Dispatch Box. In Northern Ireland, rare cancers account for a quarter of all cancer cases in both men and women. Will there be extra money set aside for Northern Ireland, where health is devolved, to deal with rare cancers? It is not just those who have rare cancers who have to deal with them; their families do, too. I ask that question of the Minister genuinely and respectfully.
Ashley Dalton
As the hon. Gentleman said, health is devolved. I am happy to write to him with the details of how we expect this private Member’s Bill to be implemented by the devolved Governments.
Question put and agreed to.
Rare Cancers Bill
Wednesday 2nd July 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during Committee sittings, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online as well as in the room. There will be a single debate on all the Bill’s clauses.
Clause 1
Review of law on marketing authorisations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I was happy with the unanimous cross-party support that the Bill received on Second Reading and look forward to examining it in detail today.
The term “rare cancer” might imply that this is a relatively niche issue that is unlikely to have an impact on many of us, but the reality is that 47% of cancers diagnosed in the UK fall within the “rare and less common” category, and they account for 55% of all cancer deaths. That second statistic is partly due to the survival rate—five out of six less survivable cancers are also rare cancers—but survivability is not just a function of the aggressiveness of the cancer. It also depends on the treatment options available, and for less survivable cancers the options are limited. They receive a mere fraction—roughly 16%—of the funding that more survivable cancers receive.
At this point, I should clarify that I have had some contact with a charity that represents younger people. It is the case that the Bill covers younger people and that all childhood cancers are rare.
The situation is unlikely to change without Government intervention. Markets encourage pharmaceutical companies to prioritise the highest return on investment. Inevitably, that favours the development of drugs with the largest potential patient pools. When a company does pursue taking a rare cancer drug to market, having to access a limited patient pool can make the creation of sufficiently robust studies and trials a struggle.
The Bill is an attempt to intervene on behalf of patients and their families, and to enable pharmaceutical companies and the Government to re-evaluate the strategies for funding, research and finding treatments. It has been drafted carefully in consultation with a wide range of cancer charities—I am pleased to see a few of them represented in the Public Gallery—and expert bodies. The Bill reflects the solutions that scientists, doctors and those with lived experience think are necessary.
In practical terms, by passing this legislation we can, first, remove the barriers to participation in potentially lifesaving clinical trials; secondly, drive investment in under-resourced yet vital drugs and treatments; and thirdly, enhance connectivity between various organisations and individuals working to find cures. That last one is an incredibly important point. I have attended many meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden; we often we see that those connections are not being made, and we all lose as a result.
Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made that compel the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a review of the marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer, and to prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of that review. I have never been a great fan of the term orphan drugs, which refers to drugs for rare conditions. The clause provides that the review process will specifically consider the regulatory approaches adopted in other countries. That will help to avoid research and patients in this country losing out.
The clause sets a timeframe for the publication of the report, namely within three years of the Bill being passed. We consulted broadly on that three-year point. We obviously all want to see progress on this issue as quickly as possible, but we have to balance that against the need for the review to be authoritative and impactful. That is where the three-year duration comes from, but I recognise that some people want it to move faster. A review of best practice at international level should surface a variety of effective strategies that the Government could consider implementing to drive pharmaceutical industry investment into lifesaving research and treatments.
Clause 2 will enable regulations to be made that will encourage the Secretary of State to facilitate, or otherwise promote, research into rare cancers. The clause will specify that the Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in place that will, first, enable potential participants in clinical trials to be identified and contacted, and secondly, ensure that a person—to be known as the national speciality lead for rare cancers—is appointed to promote and facilitate research into rare cancers. That person will hold an advisory and facilitatory role, offering input on the design and planning of research, as well as building collaborative networks between key bodies and individuals. Appointing a specific individual to hold that role will provide a structure for greater accountability and a more strategic approach for the delivery of rare cancer research across different organisations.
Clause 3 will enable regulations to be made that will facilitate data sharing in the context of contacting and identifying potential participants in clinical trials that are focused on orphan medicinal products for the diagnosis, prevention and/or treatment of rare cancers. The clause does not authorise the processing of information that would contravene existing data protection legislation. The twin benefits to enhanced data sharing are a greater access to clinical trials for patients, which could be lifesaving, and more higher-quality trials taking place in the UK as a result of a larger potential participant population for researchers.
Clause 4 explains the territorial extent of the various clauses. Clauses 2 and 3 will extend to England and Wales only, while the remainder of the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Where the Bill does not extend to the entirety of the UK, we have been assured by the devolved Governments, which were consulted during the Bill’s formulation—I thank Department of Health and Social Care colleagues for that—that they will work alongside us to achieve the policy goals it outlines within the context of their unique legal landscapes. In that regard, I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for South Antrim to ensure that Northern Ireland generally, and his constituents specifically, benefit from the Bill.
Clause 5 will provide for commencement, which will occur two months after the Bill is passed, and clause 6 provides the short title for the Bill.
I hope the Bill has real impact, because so many people in the charity sector and elsewhere are working so hard to raise often small amounts of money, which they hope will have a big impact. I hope the Bill amplifies their work and helps it to go further. I look forward to Committee members’ contributions to the discussion of this important Bill, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, which will have life-changing effects for many individuals across the entirety of the United Kingdom. I applaud him for it, because I know some of the driving reasons behind him doing that.
I have a couple of points to make about the Bill. I am fully supportive of it, but I note the geographical challenge it brings. The Northern Ireland Assembly passed a legislative consent motion for clause 1 on Monday, so we are already stepping into line for this legislation. Much of the relevant work was discussed in the Northern Ireland cancer strategy, which was published in 2022 when I was Minister of Health there. It looked at our specific challenges with regard to research and clinical trials. At that point, cancer charities highlighted that only 15% of cancer patients in Northern Ireland are offered the opportunity to take part in cancer trials, compared with 31% across the rest of the UK. I hope the Bill increases awareness among Northern Ireland patients and cancer sufferers, and their families, of what is out there and their ability to take part.
The other concern often raised by some of my Northern Ireland colleagues—you are aware of this, Mr Stuart—is the EU implications. I can state that novel treatments do not fall under the scope of the EU, so hopefully any medication, treatment or supply that comes forward will be equally accessible and applicable to the entirety of Northern Ireland. The only difficulty and challenge we have in progressing the Bill’s other provisions is the legislation that allows Northern Ireland to use secondary data for cancer registries. I am aware that the current Health Minister in Northern Ireland, who is my party colleague, has a one-clause Bill ready to move forward to rectify that.
I wanted to make that small contribution in support of the work done by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West in bringing forward the Bill. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West on bringing forward this very important piece of legislation. I declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after a number of children with rare conditions such as teratoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms’ tumour and retinoblastoma, to name but a few.
One of the issues with rare cancers, which transposes to rare diseases in general, is that they are often diagnosed late, because people do not recognise that they have symptoms of a rare disease and their health professionals are not as familiar with them because they are rare. The presentation and diagnosis are then late and, as such, the treatment is more difficult. That is compounded further because there has been less research on those topics, so it is not clear what the best treatment for those conditions is. On top of that, the patient may have to travel very long distances to see a specialist who is familiar with the condition, adding both logistical difficulty and cost to that patient’s care.
Some steps are in place to try to improve the situation. The orphan drug regime gives market exclusivity for 10 years, and it provides for lower and refunded fees from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for the services it provides. Nevertheless, it can still be non-commercially advantageous to put money into developing a drug that is going to be used on no more than a handful of people, however beneficial it is for the individuals concerned.
I welcome the Bill, but wish to make a couple of points. First, in principle it is best that trials are first broached with the patient by a member of their healthcare team. Of course, a member of any given healthcare team—I speak as one myself—will never be aware of all the trials available to all patients at any one time. I welcome the Lord O’Shaughnessy review—commissioned by the last Government and accepted by the current one—which talks about getting a consensus on how best patients can be informed of trials. I wonder whether we should have a system in which patients opt out of not the trial itself but being asked about trials. At the outset, they could be asked, “Would you like to receive information on trials—yes or no?”, so that more people can be aware of how they can contribute. When people are diagnosed with something rare, they often want to contribute to helping others who will come after them.
Will the Minister tell us more about the national cancer plan, which was consulted on earlier this year? I welcome the fact that the children and young people cancer taskforce, which was paused, is being reinstituted. Also, how will the Bill apply to repurposed drugs? Sometimes new medicines are developed for a particular condition, but we often find that medicines can be reformulated and used in a different way to provide a different form of treatment to help individuals with a different condition. How will that apply in respect of both the measures in the Bill and the O’Shaughnessy review?
As a paediatrician, I am very pleased that the Bill applies to children. Overall, I think the Bill is great. It offers hope for many in the future. Will the Minister say something about other rare conditions? As well as rare cancers, people get other rare conditions, and they are affected by the same challenges with research and treatment, and by delays in diagnosis and travel.
Overall, doctors are able to save people’s lives, and improve people’s lives, one at a time, but Parliament and research offer the opportunity to do that on a much bigger scale. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West for what he is doing today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on his Bill reaching Committee stage. That is a huge achievement for any colleague, but especially for one who has served in this place for almost exactly a year to the day. The Government welcome contributions from Back Benchers, we welcome effective scrutiny from Committees, and we value the vital role that Parliament plays in holding us to account.
In April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that clinical trials would be fast-tracked to accelerate the development of the medicines and therapies of the future. Through this new drive, patients will have improved access to new treatments and technologies. We see the Bill as contributing to that ambition. We want to go further for patients with rare cancers, and this legislation will act to incentivise recruitment, oversight and accessibility of rare cancer research, so that NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments.
Clause 1 will ensure our regulatory competitiveness. It places a duty on the Government to publish a review of the legislation around orphan drugs within three years of the Bill becoming an Act. The review will examine our legal framework and compare our approach to that of our international partners. We want the UK to lead the world in this space, as the prime destination for clinical research.
Clause 2 will raise the profile of research for rare cancers by placing a new duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to facilitate and otherwise promote research in this area. The Government want to give patients greater choice and control over their healthcare, and rare cancer patients should have access to research if they choose.
The clause also ensures that the Government will develop a bespoke registry service for rare cancers, to be delivered through the “Be Part of Research” programme—our groundbreaking research registry service provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research—and that we will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers, which we will designate within the NIHR research delivery network, who will have oversight of the overall rare cancer studies portfolio in England.
The Government are committed to going further for rare cancer patients, and that means making clinical trials more accessible. Clause 3 will introduce an innovative solution to allow rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about clinical research. The clause creates a new power to allow patient data to be shared from NHS England information systems.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that keeping a list of people with rare cancers is only any use as long as there are some drug trials? Last night we launched a first trial, in my sister’s memory, for glioblastoma, with every penny raised by people donating, holding bake sales and running marathons. Is that any way to tackle rare cancer?
Ashley Dalton
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the launch of the trial in her sister’s name. We do want to see more research and trials coming forward, particularly for rare cancers. She will be aware of the consortium that the Department has developed to work directly with the brain tumour community in particular, to improve the quality and number of research trials that come forward for funding.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Constituencies in Yorkshire, such as the one I represent, do particularly poorly with research funding—I think 5% of research funding for cancer trials goes to the area. With this Bill and a renewed focus on cancer, I hope we will look to expand the number of research-active hospitals to give people throughout the country a better chance.
Ashley Dalton
I should clarify that there is no regional specificity in the allocation of research funding. We welcome all funding bids for research on cancer and rare cancers from anywhere in the country, and I encourage them to come forward.
The new power in clause 3 to allow patient data from NHS England information systems to be shared will allow more patients to be contacted about existing trials. Practically, it will allow us to join up data from the national disease registration service with “Be Part of Research”. As I have said, we are encouraging people to bring forward more research proposals, all of which are considered.
For the first time, patients with a rare cancer could be automatically contacted about research opportunities that are relevant to them and offered innovative new treatments, which means rare cancer patients could have access to research at their fingertips. That is the kind of change that the Government support as part of the shift we are making from analogue to digital—one of the three shifts that will be covered in the 10-year plan that will be launched tomorrow, when more details will become clear.
Clause 4 covers the Bill’s territorial extent. Due to practical and legal differences between the nations, the devolved Governments did not wish to legislate in their individual countries. Our manifesto promised to reset our relationship with the devolved Governments, and we have developed the Bill with them. I am delighted that they expressed their support on Second Reading. Clauses 5 and 6 cover the Bill’s commencement and title. The Government are fully committed to supporting the Bill through the next stages so it can become the Rare Cancers Act 2025.
The shadow Minister talked about the national cancer plan, which I can confirm is being worked on. We have had over 11,000 representations on that plan, which will be published later this year, following the publication of the national 10-year plan for health tomorrow. The children and young people cancer taskforce was launched earlier this year and continues to meet, and has now ensured that young people and children’s voices are part of the taskforce.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
When the national cancer strategy is published, I hope that part of it will focus on boosting the survival rates for rare cancers. Will the Minister confirm that that will be an important part of the strategy?
Ashley Dalton
I can confirm that the overall objective of the whole cancer plan will be saving lives and reducing the number of lives lost to cancer, including rare cancers. The plan will be published later this year.
It is important to note that the Bill is specific to cancer; there will be opportunities to discuss other rare conditions in the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for presenting the Bill, and I pay tribute to the charities that are backing him, some of which I had the pleasure to meet recently to discuss further how the Government can better support people with rare cancers. Together, we will improve outcomes for people across our country, and I look forward to working with everybody to get that done.
Dr Arthur
I am grateful for all the contributions to debate. The charity partners carefully picked the Committee members, given their interest in this subject, and we can see the benefit of that.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim for his efforts to make sure that the legislation works in Northern Ireland. I am also grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, who both asked for more progress in this area generally.
Of course, I have to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. I attended the reception yesterday evening and, first and foremost, it was a fantastic celebration of her sister’s fantastic life. We should be grateful for her. I wish Paul Mulholland and his team all the best with that trial. It really did fill me with hope to hear that update from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned marathons, so at this point I have to mention my daughter, Ruth Arthur, who ran the marathon in Edinburgh for the Brain Tumour Charity and raised just over £3,000 in the memory of her grandfather. I am very proud of her.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments and the insight and depth of thinking she brought to the debate. One of the best things about this journey has been working with the DHSC team who are working on the cancer strategy, and seeing how much they care about getting this right. We have often reflected on the point that the shadow Minister made about diagnosis. Too often when we go to events in this place hosted by charities that include somebody with life experience, late diagnosis is where their story starts. It is often avoidable. It is fantastic that the DHSC cancer team acknowledge that. Hopefully our GPs in particular will get more support to make sure that the early signs are not missed and the dots are joined together. It is good to see the Minister nodding vigorously as I say that. I thank her for her leadership right across this policy area and for her support for the Bill in particular.
I thank all Committee members for coming along today and contributing, and I thank the civil servants who helped to draft the Bill. If it passes—and I really hope it does—it will incentivise and create an environment in which more research into rare cancers is fostered, potentially helping us to save, in the longer term, perhaps thousands of lives. What an aspiration that is. I once again commend the Bill to the Committee.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Rare Cancers Bill
Friday 11th July 2025
(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRare Cancers Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 July 2025 - (11 Jul 2025)
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “and”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert
“and
(c) set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.”
Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, leave out “in particular”.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 9, leave out “three” and insert “two”.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 3, leave out “in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from “are” to end of line 8 and insert “arrangements in place to”.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 12, after “appointed” insert
“within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out
“in the opinion of NHS England”.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
Sir Christopher Chope
This is certainly not a trivial Bill; it is a really important piece of legislation, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on introducing and pioneering. It was not a Government handout; it was an idea that he thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it. We had a fantastic Second Reading debate. There is tremendous interest in the Bill. May I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try to strengthen the Bill rather than anything else?
I explained my position to the hon. Gentleman yesterday. He said, understandably, that to a large extent he was constrained, because he was trying to negotiate with the Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant, he would not have got the Bill to a state where it could be accepted by the Government.
I note the different positions on this, and I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s position. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) basically said that if she had introduced such a Bill, she would have got so steamed up about it that she would have included a lot more strength and safeguards, and as a consequence it probably would not have got anywhere near being considered on Report. Those are two different approaches. I am, relatively speaking, neutral on the matter—I am a sympathetic supporter of the Bill—but I have a lot of background experience of how Governments always try to give themselves wriggle room, in effect to maintain control over everything, and in my view the Bill could be improved by being amended, with the will of the House, on Report.
We could talk about taking some of my amendments to the other place, but the trouble is that the Government machine may say that there will not be any more sitting Fridays in this House, so if the Bill were to be amended in the other place it might fall completely, because it would need to be brought back here. That is why it is important that the House should consider these amendments now rather than leave them to the other place.
Amendment 1, which is to be read with amendment 2, is a prime example of the point I made earlier. We have a commitment from the Government that:
“The Secretary of State must…carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer”—
great—
“and…prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”
But what is the timescale for that, and what will happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the Government to do anything else. The review and its conclusions could be just left on one side. We in the House are in a position to tighten those provisions up and say, “This is not good enough. There should be a timetable for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.” That is the essence of the two amendments.
To look at another gap that could be exploited by the Government, the Bill says that the report must be
“published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed”.
I have tabled amendment 4 to say that the period should be two years.
In respect of both those points, I have had a helpful email from Diana Jupp from Pancreatic Cancer UK, who writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She comments on my amendments. On amendment 2, she says,
“We are keen to push for this change with the Department once we reach implementation stage of the Bill.”
With the greatest of respect to Diana Jupp, we can do this now. Instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try to pressurise the Department later, we in this House have the power to change the legislation in the way that I have suggested, so that there would be a timetable set out for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.
In response to amendment 4, Diana Jupp says that
“this timeline has been agreed with the Department and in our opinion would tie into the timelines of other developing cancer policy implementation, including the cancer plan.”
Obviously, the most important part of her comment is that the timeline has been agreed with the Department, because if it had not been, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the Bill forward in this way and agreed to it.
On the timeline, I draw the House’s attention to the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. It says that the whole process will take one year. The Department reckons that it will cost £130,000 and sets out how many full-time equivalent civil servants will be involved in it. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? That is an example of why we need to tighten up the Bill, because if this is a review that needs to and will be carried out, why do we not get on with it? To suggest that it will take longer than a year is to go against the Department’s own evidence set out in the impact assessment.
The impact assessment says on page 6, under the heading “Mandating a Government review of the orphan drug regulations”:
“This will place a duty on the Government to publish a review which will be a comparison of orphan drug Regulations (specifically Part 5 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) and international regulatory approaches to supporting the research and development of orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers. Since the review is concerned with orphan drug regulations it is by default covering rare cancers. The findings should be published within 3 years.” On page 7, paragraph 19 on financial costs says,
“It is difficult to estimate the resourcing costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. However, we estimate the cost to the Department of Health and Social Care to produce and publish a report on orphan drug Regulations to incur costs of approximately £0.14m in relation to staff resource. This reflects the cost of 0.3 x SCS staff, 1 x FTE Grade 6 or Grade 7 staff, 0.3 x Grade 7 staff and 0.5 x SEO staff for one year.”
That is what the Government say: only one year will be necessary.
In that case, why is my generous amendment, which would restrict the period from three years to two years, unacceptable to the Government? There is a history of dragging of feet at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am afraid; we certainly heard about that on Second Reading. I give the House that specific example of why, on the Government’s own evidence, they should accept the change from three years to two.
Amendment 3 would leave out “in particular” from line 7, which reads:
“In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider regulatory approaches in other countries.”
The amendment is intended to probe rather than anything else. Why do the words “in particular” need to be incorporated? Surely it would be simpler to say that the Secretary of State “must consider regulatory approaches in other countries”—full stop, period. But that is not how it is at the moment.
Amendment 5 would leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is to do with the definition of a rare cancer. Currently, clause 2 would add this wording to the National Health Service Act 2006:
“The research that the Secretary must facilitate or otherwise promote under subsection (1)(a) includes research into cancers that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers.”
Why cannot it not just say “that are rare cancers”? Indeed, clause 2 would also add this wording to the 2006 Act:
“In this section ‘rare cancer’ means a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom.”
That is an issue of fact. The Secretary of State should not be able to basically have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer.
This is just another example of the control freakery within the Department. I am sorry that so far the Minister does not seem to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him, no doubt, that we need the expression
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
Again, the argument is quite straightforward and the people from Pancreatic Cancer UK are on my side, but they are obviously very keen for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the Government’s power to prevent it from making any further progress. That is why it will be quite difficult, I suppose, to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 5.
Amendment 6 would leave out from “are” to the end of the line and insert “arrangements in place to” in this statement in clause 2:
“In discharging the duty under subsection (1)(a) in relation to those cancers, the Secretary of State must, in particular, ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to”.
Why can we not just say “arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials”, and so on? Why do we need to give the Secretary of State discretion —a veto, essentially—over whether he considers those arrangements to be appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary and, indeed, oppressive. It is counter to the expressed wishes of this House on Second Reading, when there was impatience over the delay, because of the need to get on with this, and suspicion over the failure of the Department of Health and Social Care—under not just this Government but previous Governments, which I would be the first to accept—to actually deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to rare cancers. That is amendment 6. I am trying to beetle through these amendments quite quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can participate in this important debate.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear what the hon. Member is saying, but why does the impact assessment say that the costs are for staff for only one year? If the review will take three years, why are the staff funded for only one?
Dr Arthur
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. 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.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
To your delight, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the delight of the whole House—especially that of the Government Whips—I am not going to speak for very long on Report, although I am not promising not to speak for some time on Third Reading. I wish to briefly speak to amendments 5 and 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). Before that, though, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on the Bill. I am generally supportive of it and think it is entirely necessary.
Turning to the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right. It does concern me that the words
“the opinion of the Secretary of State”
are included proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, proposed new subsection (4) of section 1E and proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 set out the definition of a rare cancer, and if the Bill passes, that definition will become law. I therefore think there is a contradiction within this piece of legislation: it contains an absolute definition of a rare cancer, but adds some ambiguity by referring to the “opinion” of the Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to explain how both those things can be true. If the Secretary of State decides that there is some other definition of a rare cancer, how can that possibly be in line with the definition that is written into the law?
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has said, the definition that has been included in the Bill—that a rare cancer is
“a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom”—
aligns it with the UK rare diseases framework, which was published by Lord Bethell in the other place in 2021. It seems to me that that is an effective and suitable definition, so again, I ask the Minister whether he expects there to be some other definition. If he does not expect that, why is it necessary to include the words
“the opinion of the Secretary of State”?
The Bill is not even consistent. Proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 refers to the opinion of the Secretary of State, but proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 talks about
“the opinion of NHS England”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has pointed out, NHS England is fortunately going to be abolished very soon. When that happens, will we have to pass either primary legislation or secondary legislation to delete those words from the Bill? Would it not be better if we deleted the words “the opinion of NHS England” now? Why will the Minister not consider removing them? If there is some reason why he thinks the Secretary of State might have to change the definition, why are those two clauses of the Bill not consistent?
I hope hon. Members will see that what the hon. Member for Christchurch and I are trying to achieve—certainly through amendments 5 and 8—is to establish a clear definition of a rare cancer. We are aiming to ensure that there is no ambiguity in that definition, and if there is to be ambiguity, we want to at least ensure that the body or authority that is going to make any changes is consistent in the legislation.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I rise to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition in support of the Rare Cancers Bill, and to welcome its thoughtful and necessary intervention on behalf of a group of patients who have been under-researched, under-represented, and under-acknowledged for too long. I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing this Bill forward, and on his ongoing dedication to the issue.
The case for the Bill is clear: rare cancers—defined, in line with the UK rare diseases framework, as conditions affecting fewer than one in 2,000 people—are individually uncommon but collectively account for more than 20% of all cancer diagnoses. However, as we know, patients with rare cancers routinely face delayed diagnosis, limited treatment options and far fewer opportunities to participate in clinical research.
The Bill does not claim to be a silver bullet, but it does mark a significant step forward in how we think about and legislate for research, regulation and data access in rare cancer care. It is focused, proportionate and strategically aligned with the existing NHS and National Institute for Health and Care Research frameworks.
Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer. It also rightly requires that the review includes comparisons with regulatory approaches in other countries. This is vital. The explanatory notes rightly observe that research into rare cancers is often commercially unattractive because of small patient populations and high developmental costs. If our regulatory environment creates further barriers to entry, patients suffer—not because the science does not exist but because the system does not support it.
The UK’s current approach to orphan designation lacks the pre-authorisation incentives found in systems such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. The review required under the Bill is the opportunity to ask whether we are doing enough to attract the research and development that rare cancer patients deserve.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is responding to the amendments or making a Third Reading speech. I hope he will address the amendments I have tabled, including those that relate to clause 1, about which he has just spoken.
Dr Evans
If my hon. Friend bears with me, I will turn directly to his amendments. It is important to first set out the context, because we must understand the clauses if we are to debate the amendments to them.
Clause 2 makes crucial changes to the Secretary of State’s duty under the National Health Service Act 2006 by stating explicitly that it must include research into cancers that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are rare. Although this matters, the research agenda is often driven by numbers and funding scales. By mandating that rare cancers be part of the agenda, the Bill begins to shift the culture towards inclusion, equity and long-term thinking.
I particularly welcome the creation of the national specialty lead for rare cancers, modelling the NIHR’s existing structure of research delivery leaders. This individual will be tasked with promoting and facilitating research, advising on trial design and convening collaboration. The success of this role will depend on it not just being symbolically supported but having a clear remit, adequate funding and a strategic alignment with the wider NIHR research delivery network.
Clause 3 amends section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to allow NHS England to disclose information from cancer registries for the purpose of identifying and contacting potential clinical trial participants. This is a significant and necessary step. The Bill distinguishes between a disease registry, like the National Disease Registration Service, and a contact registry, such as Be Part of Research. Making sure that these systems can speak to each other will be of significant benefit when it comes to matching patients with opportunities. Importantly, the clause reaffirms that any such data sharing must remain compliant with the Data Protection Act 2018. As proposed new subsection 6A to the 2012 Act makes clear,
“A power conferred by this section to process information does not authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation”.
This is a safeguard that we must preserve, not weaken, if we are to maintain public trust in the system.
At this point I turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). He approaches private Members’ Bills in the way that a jeweller examines diamonds—with a magnifying glass, a steady hand and absolutely no tolerance for flaws. We may grumble as the clock ticks on, but deep down we all sleep better knowing that he is reading the footnotes. This Bill is no different; he has approached it with rigour, and I thank him for his commitment to precision and improving clarity and accountability. As he pointed out, the Bill is not trivial. Therefore, it is not only right, but indeed the duty of this House, to scrutinise closely legislation and amendments laid before us.
To that end, several of the amendments aim to tighten the Bill’s drafting or introduce firmer deadlines. For example, amendment 4 would reduce the timeframe for the review under clause 1 from three years to two. Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State to
“set out a timetable for implementing any changes in the law recommended by the review.”
I understand the concern that reviews can drift, but the three-year period reflects the complexity of the subject: a UK-wide review of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, including benchmarking against other jurisdictions and engaging multiple agencies. Compressing the timeline might jeopardise the depth or quality of the analysis. Likewise, a statutory timetable for implementation could constrain the Government prematurely, before the review’s conclusions are even known.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his unprompted comments. He will know that the funding is sufficient to staff the review only for one year. If there is only funding for one year, why does it take three?
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend knows, far better than I, not to look at legislation in isolation. The Government will at some point bring forward the cancer plan, which will have a direct crossover with the Bill, so it is right to give the Government the freedom and space to implement the legislation. If we rush it, we could get it wrong, which would be even more detrimental for those who suffer with rare cancers.
Other amendments address definitions and discretion. For example, amendment 5 would remove
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”
from the definition of rare cancer, and amendment 8 would remove similar wording in relation to NHS England’s discretion. At first glance, the amendments may seem like matters of tidy drafting, but retaining discretion is important, especially as regards rare cancers. Prevalence data can be uncertain or lagging, and flexibility allows for expert judgments about edge cases in which rigid definitions may unintentionally exclude patients from trials or research that could benefit them.
On top of that, there are concerns even about simple definitions. We are still exploring the difference between, for example, pre-cancerous and cancerous cells. If someone goes for a smear, that is what they are told. This is a new area. Who knows what will come up in the future? Simply defining rare cancers on the basis of lagging prevalence data is a risk, and it is therefore right that the Government and the Secretary at State have discretion to direct in one way or another.
However, I would grateful if the Government would answer the question, which has been rightly posed, of who or what will fill the role when NHS England is abolished. It is not clear exactly what that will look like. I have asked the Minister this question several times, in relation to the Mental Health Bill and other areas, and it is a question that this House should rightly ask. Who will be responsible for what, when and why?
That said, amendment 7, which would ensure that the proposed national specialty lead is appointed within six months of Royal Assent, deserves serious consideration. Patients have waited long enough. If the Government are confident that the post can be established promptly and resourced effectively, I would welcome that ambition being stated at the Dispatch Box today.
Finally, I must express my concern about amendment 9, which proposes to remove the data protection safeguard in clause 3(4). Although the provision may be declaratory, in that it reaffirms existing legal obligations, it none the less offers clarity and reassurance. In an area as sensitive as health data, such clarity matters, and the subsection’s removal could cause unnecessary concern, even if the underlying law remains unchanged.
In conclusion, this Bill is not about grandstanding. It is modest in financial cost, careful in its drafting and realistic in its scope, but its impact could be significant. For patients living with rare cancers, and clinicians and researchers striving to support them, the Bill offers real hope—hope for faster access to innovation, hope for more inclusive research and hope for a regulatory system that works for the many, not just the minority. Every patient matters, whether they are one in two or one in 2,000. As we stated on Second Reading and in Committee, we support the Bill, and I thank the House for giving me the chance to explain why.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing this Bill before the House, and I congratulate him on getting it to Report. Amendment 1 allows amendment 2 to be inserted into the Bill. Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State, having carried out the review described in clause 1, to set out a timetable for implementing changes to the law recommended by the review. However, it would not be appropriate to presume the outcome of the review of orphan drug regulations that is outlined in clause 1. Amendment 2 presupposes that the review will recommend changing the law, and that there are changes the Secretary of State would be willing to support, following a legal consultation. That is not considered appropriate at this stage.
Amendment 3 is unnecessarily restrictive, introducing wording that confines the review unnecessarily. We want to ensure that a thorough review is conducted, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care will be working with her officials to ensure that that happens. For amendment 4, the three-year timeframe to prepare and publish the review and the necessary resourcing requirements have been discussed with officials in my Department and at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I remind Members that the text in the Bill reflects the statutory deadline, but we will endeavour to publish a report ahead of the three-year timeframe, which has been put forward to be consistent with the MHRA’s overall workplan.
On amendment 5, there are different definitions of a rare cancer, and we worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to agree the definition in the Bill as a cancer that affects not more than one in 2,000 people in the UK. However, a level of discretion for the Secretary of State is required over what falls within that definition, since the facts underlying and the data on diagnoses are constantly changing. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.
Amendment 6 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion as to how their duty would be discharged. This is not considered appropriate, since it makes the operation of clause 2 less workable in practice, and would lack the Government’s assessment of what in all the circumstances would be the most appropriate manner of implementation. Amendment 7 would introduce a specific timeframe—just six months—to allow the appointment of the specialty lead. Although I agree that we will need to appoint the specialty lead promptly, introducing a statutory timeframe is not considered workable for practical reasons. There could be unforeseen delays; for example, recruitment processes might delay the appointment beyond six months.
On amendment 8, as mentioned previously there are different definitions for a rare cancer. That is because the data on cancer diagnoses is constantly changing, and decisions on whether the criteria for a rare cancer are met will inevitably involve an element of judgment. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.
I turn finally to amendment 9. It is essential that information relating to people’s health and care is shared appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. Amendment 9 would remove the provision confirming that any sharing of information pursuant to the powers created by the Bill, and under NHS England’s existing powers, must be in accordance with data protection legislation. That includes compliance with key principles such as lawfulness and fairness. That layer of assurance is essential for the protection of patients, and clause 3 is a standard provision that makes that explicit.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to withdraw all nine of his amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Sir Christopher, is it your pleasure that amendment 1 be withdrawn?
Sir Christopher Chope
Is it possible to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Very briefly. I was asking whether amendment 1 would be pushed to a vote or withdrawn, so if you could alert me to that it would be very useful.
Sir Christopher Chope
I will respond briefly to the debate. In so doing, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their contributions.
I listened for what the Minister would say in response to my point about NHS England, but I did not hear the expression “NHS England” come from between his lips, and I wonder whether that was an oversight or whether it was left out of his brief deliberately by officials from NHS England. Amendment 8 specifically deals with NHS England, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth referred to it. Does the Minister’s reluctance to intervene at this stage show that he is in denial about the policy in relation to NHS England? I presume that he is in such denial.
We have had a classic example from the Minister of why the civil service is ruling okay, because it can come forward with a valid objection to every possible suggested alternative and amendment. I do not think that this attitude will be very helpful to the people we are trying to help through the Bill—namely, those who are suffering from rare cancers and who want us to make progress in this area. I will not press any of these amendments to a vote, but I hope that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be more persistent probing, particularly on the issues around NHS England and the definitions.
To give credit where it is due, I was pleased with what the Minister said about the specialty lead. As discussed, we do not need legislation for this anyway. He said he wants to have that dealt with promptly but is fearful of accepting an amendment that requires it to be done within six months because of the possibility of unforeseen delays. I take it from that that he is going to get on with that aspect, and let us hope that that goes faster rather than slower. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Dr Arthur
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a joy it is to say that! Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been 10 months since you pulled my little ping-pong ball out of the goldfish bowl and I started this journey. It is worth remembering that part of the reason behind this Bill was the death of my father-in-law to a rare cancer type called glioblastoma. I am forever grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for the information she gave me about that condition and how it impacts so many people, because I had always just been focused on my father-in-law.
When the ping-pong ball was pulled out of the goldfish bowl, I got so many emails, many of which were about glioblastoma. The reality is that someone who was diagnosed that day with glioblastoma would more than likely be dead by now—that is how serious the condition is. They would face treatments that were out of date, and their future would be dominated by uncertainty. We should not forget why we are here: to change that reality for people and their families.
This Bill has resonated with many Members of this House and with many people in my constituency. On Second Reading, I shared the tragic stories of a young constituent called Tilly, who passed away from neuroblastoma, and Kira, who has lived with the same condition for a decade—half of her life. I am proud to wear the Solving Kids’ Cancer badge, which Kira’s mother Aud gave me when I last met her.
Today, I also want to acknowledge the many people from across the UK—not just voters in Edinburgh South West—who have contacted me to voice their support and share their stories. One lady travelled quite far to meet me at my constituency surgery in July in Tesco in Colinton Mains. Her daughter was diagnosed with a sarcoma. In Tesco, next to the bleeping self-checkout aisles, she told me about the uncertainty she had faced after that diagnosis and how she had found it impossible even to understand which trials were available, let alone access them. I could see that she had felt powerless and had lost hope. The other reason she was in Edinburgh—perhaps the most important reason—was that she was meeting her ex-husband to scatter her daughter’s ashes in a local park. What is happening to people who face these conditions is quite incredible, so it is right that we seek to address them.
It has been incredible to hear these stories, and when I reflect on them, I can see that there are three recurring themes. The first is frustration. As things stand, our NHS is ill equipped to deal with these patients. Awareness levels are often low among clinicians, which leads to the scourge of late diagnosis. I know that will be addressed in the cancer plan. Families and patients are also frustrated by the limited access to cutting-edge trials—I have already given an example of that. As a result, many rare cancer patients understandably feel like they have to battle not just against the cancer but for attention.
The second key thing that unites these stories is perseverance. Rare cancer patients continually push back and advocate for the changes that they believe must happen—often fundraising or even setting up and running their own charities to help to achieve those goals. Thirdly, each and every story concludes with an offer of help. Rather than asking what I can do for them, because often rare cancer patients know that their options are limited, they want to know what they can do to help with the Bill, help others with the same condition, and help to make this legislation a reality. I believe that is a testament to the transformational role that the Bill could have, and I thank Members who have already made that point.
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. 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.
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”.
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. 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. 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. There is a strong moral and economic argument for this Bill, and the progress within it is long overdue.
Gregory Stafford
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing this essential Bill before us and thank him for the hard work he has done to make sure we get to this place. As I have said many times in this House, early detection saves lives, but without meaningful progress in research we will fall behind other countries making major advances in cancer care.
We call these rare cancers, and they are rare in their individual components, but I have been amazed by how many constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages have contacted me in support of the Bill and to share their experiences. Despite rare and less common cancers receiving more than half of UK cancer research funding in recent years, a staggering 82% of patients surveyed by Cancer52 said that they were never offered the chance to participate in a clinical trial. That is not because there is no public support or because the science is not there, but because persistent structural barriers are in the way. The Bill addresses those barriers directly.
If enacted, the Rare Cancers Bill will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers within Government, creating accountability, facilitating research and collaboration, and embedding co-ordination across NHS England—while it still exists—the National Institute for Health and Care Research and cancer alliances. Secondly, it will mandate a review of the UK’s orphan drug regulations, aligning incentives such as marketing exclusivity and reduced regulatory fees with international best practice. Thirdly, it will adapt the NIHR’s Be Part of Research platform to create a dedicated, proactive registry that directly links patients with relevant clinical trials.
Let us be clear: this Bill aims to deploy smarter systems, harness the power of artificial intelligence, expand fair access to treatment, end the postcode lottery and ensure that every patient, no matter the type of cancer, has the opportunity to benefit from research and high-quality personalised care. Let us also be clear about the need. Rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses, yet they are responsible for 55% of all cancer deaths. That means that more than half of those who die of cancer in this country do so from conditions that receive disproportionately less investment, less attention and less hope.
The disparity in survival is stark. For some rare cancers, five-year survival rates languish in the single digits. Only 16% of people diagnosed with cancers of the pancreas, brain, oesophagus, liver or stomach survive beyond five years. By contrast, the five-year survival rate across more common cancers is more than 55%. This is not a marginal issue; this is mainstream cancer care, but it is neglected.
Our international peers are taking action. In countries such as France, Germany and the USA, regulatory frameworks are actively incentivising clinical trials for rare cancers. The UK, meanwhile, has fallen from second to 10th in Europe for access to orphan medicines. We must reverse that decline. We must unlock the potential of our research base, and this Bill gives us the legislative structure to do so.
The NHS 10-year plan, launched with the ambition to modernise our health service, is a wide-ranging document. It rightly champions early diagnosis, innovation and personalised care, and there is no doubt that many of its pillars, particularly those on genomics, digital access and therapeutic innovation, can benefit people with rare cancers, but “can” is not the same as “will”, and “should” is not the same as “must”. The plan sets out a national goal to diagnose 75% of all cancers at stages 1 or 2 by 2028. That target explicitly includes rare and less common cancers. That is an important and necessary ambition but, as campaigners have rightly pointed out, without specific structural action on rare cancers, we will not hit that target; even worse, we will leave some of the most vulnerable patients behind.
As I have said, these are not fringe diseases: these are mainstream conditions that are under-researched and under-resourced. The 10-year plan includes a number of relevant commitments, such as the whole genome sequencing of newborns, supported by £650 million of investment, which could revolutionise early detection of genetic cancer syndromes. Of course, there are some safeguarding issues around that sequencing—I do not want to pre-empt my column in PoliticsHome on Monday, but please read it for more about my concerns over those safeguards.
Likewise, the plan includes the expansion of genomic and pharmacogenomic services in the NHS, giving us the potential to offer targeted therapies for rare cancers. It has a pipeline for advanced therapy medicinal products, including CAR T-cell treatments, which are already being rolled out for certain rare blood cancers. It also streamlines the regulatory pathways through a proposed innovator passport to bring treatments to patients faster.
Those are steps in the right direction, but let me be frank: the plan does not go far enough for people with rare cancers. There is no dedicated rare cancer taskforce, despite repeated calls from Cancer52, Sarcoma UK and the Brain Tumour Charity. There is no specific ringfenced funding for rare cancer services, despite the complex multidisciplinary care that these conditions require. There are no rare cancer-specific training pathways or fellowships, despite clear evidence from clinicians that a lack of expertise is hampering outcomes. The England rare diseases action plan, published alongside the NHS strategy, takes some welcome steps on collaborative networks and data integration, but rare cancers are again folded into a general framework, rather than given the targeted attention they so desperately need.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I am here today on behalf of my young constituent, Imogen, and all young people facing tongue cancer. It is a rare cancer, with frightening and disabling treatment options. I am also here on behalf of my constituent Ros, who lost her mother to pancreatic cancer just 24 hours after diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that this House should be united in its support for practical, targeted reforms to advance rare cancer research, which are supported by more than 30 expert charity partners and which so many of our constituents desperately want to see passed into law?
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right—I hope this matter has cross-party support in the House. As she points out, a significant number of charities across the country hope that the Bill will pass today, as do I.
That brings me nicely on to what Jane Lyons, the former chief executive of Cancer52, has said:
“Rare and less common cancers make up a massive part of the cancer burden in this country. They need proper structural attention—not just well-meaning inclusion in generic plans.”
She is right. We need dedicated leadership and a single accountable individual or office for rare cancer research and care. We need smarter data platforms, such as the adapted Be Part of Research system proposed in the Bill, and we need a clear strategy for delivering orphan drug access, so that the UK becomes a destination for innovation, not a detour.
When the NHS 10-year plan speaks of transformation, we must ensure that that transformation is inclusive. When we talk about prevention, early detection and innovation, we must be honest about who gets access and who does not. If we are serious about improving outcomes for all cancer patients, rare cancers must not be treated as an afterthought. They must be recognised for what they are: a major public health challenge hiding in plain sight.
The 10-year plan gives us the tools, but it is now up to this House and to Ministers to ensure that those tools are used equitably, strategically and with urgency. That is why I was incredibly saddened to hear that Dr Susan Michaelis, the founder of the lobular moonshot project, died a couple of days ago. Susan’s life and legacy exemplify why this Bill matters. Lobular breast cancer affects 22 women every single day in the UK and more than 1,000 globally. It is not rare in the strict legal sense—more than six per 100,000 are diagnosed annually—but due to the severe lack of research, awareness and tailored treatment, it deserves to be treated as such by our systems.
Susan was due to meet the Secretary of State on 14 July—this coming Monday—to discuss how to accelerate the vital five-year research project she helped to initiate. Thankfully, that meeting will still go ahead. The campaign will not stop. The lobular moonshot project will continue—for Susan, and for every woman still facing this disease without the research-backed options that she deserved.
Susan is far from alone. A constituent recently wrote to me about their mother, who died in 2011, just three years after her diagnosis with glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive and incurable brain tumour. The average glioblastoma survival time is 12 to 18 months; only 25% of patients survive more than a year, and just 5% live beyond five. Another campaigner spoke movingly about the delays she faced before being diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer—initially misdiagnosed, postponed by covid, and ultimately caught too late.
There are so many rare cancers, and the stories repeat. Rare cancers are not rare to those living with them; they are rare only to the system. According to Jane Lyons, the former CEO of Cancer52,
“Something like 47% of all cancer diagnoses are for rare and less common cancers, but they account for 55% of all cancer deaths…That’s a massive number of challenges—and a huge opportunity for impact.”
Sarcoma UK’s recent report found that one in three sarcoma patients waits more than six months to be diagnosed. Referral pathways are frequently misapplied, and this delay is not a minor inconvenience; in cancer care, it can be fatal.
The Brain Tumour Charity has called the Bill
“essential for any real hope of progress in finding a cure.”
The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce has declared that this legislation is
“crucial for early diagnosis and equity of access.”
The Urostomy Association, in its rare cancers manifesto, calls for urgent structural change to improve data, screening and outcomes, and Lynch Syndrome UK has spoken powerfully about the opportunities to accelerate genetic-led, AI-informed cancer prevention if rare cancer research is properly funded.
I believe that the Rare Cancers Bill will help to achieve that. It has three core provisions: first, a named lead for rare cancer research so that this agenda has a home in Government and a voice at the top table; secondly, a review of the orphan drug regulations to create better commercial incentives for new treatments and trials; and thirdly, a patient-focused data system built into the Be Part of Research platform so that people are no longer left in the dark about trials that could change their lives. This is not just about saving lives; it is about improving them. It is about ensuring that families are not left with grief and regret when better systems might have given them hope.
Today, as we consider the Rare Cancers Bill, let us remember people like Susan Michaelis and the countless families who have campaigned for change they may not live to see. Let us recognise that rare cancers are not someone else’s problem, but a public health injustice hiding in plain sight. Let us pass the Bill—not just for the scientists and clinicians, but for every patient, and for every parent and partner who has watched a loved one suffer from a cancer few people can even pronounce. This is our chance to correct the imbalance, drive innovation and deliver real, lasting change. If we seize this moment, we can ensure that every patient—no matter how rare their cancer—can access trials, treatment and the possibility of life.
Let us not waste this opportunity. Let us be clear-eyed about the gaps and build an NHS that genuinely serves every patient, with every type of cancer, in every part of this country. Together, let us leave a legacy worthy of those we have lost, and transform care for those still fighting.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, which will make a real difference by improving the detection and treatment of rare cancers. We heard really moving contributions on Second Reading, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn).
With permission from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I will take this opportunity to press the Minister on research into lobular breast cancer, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). Twenty-two people a day are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in the UK; at around 30 in 2,000, it falls outside the scope of the Bill. However, with a UK population of 70 million, 22 a day would popularly be deemed to be rare. More importantly, it has unmet clinical need, and that is what really matters.
Lobular breast cancer was first identified as a separate type of breast cancer 50 years ago, and while breast cancer survival rates have generally improved, research specifically into lobular has been rare and grossly underfunded, and the basic biology of the disease remains mostly unknown. That has led to two effects. First, it is difficult to detect as its web-like structure means that it does not have the typical lump, so it often spreads before it gets detected. Secondly, there is no bespoke treatment, so doctors will throw the kitchen sink at it—radio and chemo—and hope for the best.
Scientists say that a treatment for lobular can be developed; the only reason it has not is lack of funding for research. In May 2023, Dr Susan Michaelis, who had been diagnosed with lobular 12 years earlier, launched the lobular moonshot project. One of the moonshot campaigners is my constituent Katie Swinburne: a mother of three and a popular local school teacher. I met Katie recently in her home, along with Susan and her husband Tristan Loraine.
Susan had deteriorated since we had met on Zoom. She explained that her cancer was terminal—it was too late to save her—but she was determined to spend her last years campaigning for change. We hoped that she would have years to come. Katie, however, still has a hope for treatment and a cure in her lifetime. She hopes to see her children grow old and to carry grandchildren.
This coming Monday, as has been said, we were due to meet the Secretary of State to press the case for £20 million for the lobular moonshot project, which is just £240 for every person diagnosed. We will still press ahead with that meeting, but two days ago Dr Susan Michaelis, the founder of the moonshot project, sadly passed away 14 years after her initial diagnosis. She died peacefully at 5 pm, proudly wearing her lobular moonshot project T-shirt. She was surrounded by her husband Tristan Loraine and some close friends.
The lobular moonshot project is the most bipartisan, politically supported campaign in the nation right now, with 370 MPs from across all parties having called on the Government to fund this vital research. During her 14 years’ suffering with this cruel and brutal illness, Susan was given eight different forms of breast cancer treatment, but none of them was able to stop the disease progressing. None of the treatments she received was based on the basic biology of lobular breast cancer because, as I said, it has not yet been explored.
In the last couple of years, Susan and a team of campaigning women who have been touched by the disease have already raised £125,000 to set up the infrastructure to carry out research at the Manchester breast centre led by Professor Robert Clarke. Her remarkable campaign has touched women across the country. If I may, I will share a few comments about Susan.
As a young girl, Susan always dreamed of being a pilot, but there were few opportunities for women to become commercial pilots in Australia at the time so she completed a degree in marketing and saved up the money to become a private pilot. After teaching people to fly, she finally became an airline pilot, starting off in the challenging Northern Territory of Australia flying to remote communities.
In 1994, when she was 32, Susan started flying the British Aerospace 146 and immediately noticed a strange smell in the aircraft. The breathing air supply was being contaminated with jet engine oil decomposition products. Despite being told that there was nothing to be concerned about, she suffered increasing health effects from those exposures, and three years later in 1997 she collapsed after a flight. She felt like she was having a stroke. Three years of exposure to a complex mix of chemicals including organophosphates, carbon monoxide and endocrine disrupting chemicals had seriously affected her health, and she lost her airline pilot medical certificate. She never flew as an airline pilot again.
Two years later, Susan was partly responsible for the Australian Senate carrying out a year-long investigation into the problem, which concluded that the chemical exposures were affecting flight safety and crew and public health. She was determined that the aviation industry should resolve the problem so she undertook the first ever PhD into the subject, and later qualified as an air accident investigator. She published numerous scientific papers on the subject, and briefed airlines, oil manufacturers, Governments and countless others on the topics.
In 2007, 10 years after her first flight as an airline pilot, Australian Senator O’Brien revealed a secret agreement between British Aerospace, the aircraft engine manufacturer, and two Australian airlines, in which a large sum of money and aircraft parts were given in a settlement for problems relating to oil contaminating the breathing air supply on the aircraft model that Susan flew. After her injuries, sustained as an airline pilot, Susan completed Half Ironman triathlons and became the first Australian to receive the British citizen award for her and Tristan’s work on aviation safety. Last year, the Dr Susan Michaelis rose was launched by Harkness Roses at the Chelsea flower show. Susan has appeared or been portrayed in numerous documentaries and films. She will be greatly missed, but the campaign that she founded will live on.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I once more thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for all he has done to bring the Bill forward. We, along with thousands of families throughout the UK, all owe him a huge debt. I am proud to have supported the Bill from the very beginning. I also pay tribute to the ongoing work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), whose inspirational advocacy has set the example on these issues, particularly for new MPs like me.
I do not think I need take up much time restating why the Rare Cancers Bill matters; every hon. Member who sat alongside me in the Bill Committee knows that already, which is why we reported it to the House unamended. The Minister also knows, which is why the Government have repeatedly pledged their support, and organisations working with rare cancers know too. The Brain Tumour Charity describes this legislation as “a Bill of hope” and Pancreatic Cancer UK talks of its potential to transform survival for rare cancers. That potential sits with us today.
The Rare Cancers Bill takes concrete and common-sense steps to facilitate research into rare cancers, to improve the speed and quality of necessary clinical trials, and to help get orphan drugs—medicines often neglected because they target uncommon conditions—to those patients who so desperately need them. I urge the House to advance the Bill and ensure that its provisions become law as rapidly as possible. So much depends on getting this one right. To that end, I briefly remind the House what exactly is at stake today for families, including my own, throughout this country.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I told the story of Group Captain Pip Harding, my brother-in-law, who was diagnosed with an aggressive stage 4 glioblastoma in February 2024. His prognosis was such that he should not be here today. Pip is married with five children. He has served in the Royal Air Force in the Indo-Pacific, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I am immensely proud of him, not least because of his battle against this devastating diagnosis.
Pip’s family, friends and those who loved him rallied around him. More than 600 of them set up a GoFundMe page to cover the cost of an experimental cancer treatment, oncothermia, which uses radio frequencies to target and treat malignant cancer cells. I am happier than I can say to be able to tell the House that Pip is alive and well, and that the tumour has shrunk from 7cm to less than 1 cm as a result of that treatment. For Pip’s loved ones, of course, that means the world—oncothermia is winning it for him. It means that there is more time for his family and more time for more treatments to come online to get his health back.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is a matter of delight that the hon. Lady’s brother-in-law is still well and that the tumour has shrunk. But I should say to the House and all Members that that machine, which my late sister campaigned and raised funding for, is currently situated in a private hospital in London because it would get nowhere near an NHS hospital. That is the tragedy of the circumstances that we find ourselves in: our system is so restrictive that we cannot look for new innovations within our NHS.
Monica Harding
I thank the hon. Member for all her advocacy on the issue. She makes an important point, which was made previously: rare cancers are not rare for the victims and their families. That is why we need to bring such treatments into the NHS so that they are available for all, not just for those who set up GoFundMe pages that win tens of thousands of pounds.
Of glioblastoma, Pip said:
“This is a very sad disease of which the cause is…unknown and seems to randomly strike individuals. It would be just amazing if the policy to support these people was changed by this vote and I am personally so grateful to all of you who are so kindly driving this forward.”
His successful story and the challenge of accessing oncothermia underscore equally the importance of the legislation. In sum, innovative new treatments for rare cancers must be brought to patients as fast as possible.
My constituents in Esher and Walton, particularly those whose lives have been scarred by cancer, also feel that very deeply. In the last few days, many have written to me about the legislation to share why its success matters so much to them. One told me of his very young son, who was diagnosed last year with a rare brain tumour that has turned their lives upside down. One told me about his own battle with brain cancer, the excellent care that he has received in the NHS and the fundamentally limited treatment options available to him based on the current state of research and drug development and marketing. Another constituent whose daughter has glioblastoma offered me an important reminder about our work today when they said that
“every important issue or gain has to be fought over fiercely before anything is achieved.”
They are absolutely right.
I will take this opportunity to highlight some other people who have fought and for whom the Bill is vital. My constituent Kate Ford has been campaigning for the lobular moonshot project since she was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer two years. We have already heard how research for that disease has been entirely insufficient and how necessary that project is right now. I am proud to be one of hundreds of MPs on both sides of the House calling on the Government to support it, as we have heard. Like the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), I was deeply saddened to hear of the death of Dr Susan Michaelis, the project’s founder, this week. My constituent Kate is now carrying forward Susan’s torch and will be at the meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on Monday. I call on the Government to answer Susan’s call and finally back the project.
While I have the Government’s attention, I will raise one more important issue. Pip was an RAF helicopter pilot. There are a growing number of veterans who served as aircrew on military helicopters and were exposed to exhaust fumes during their time in the forces, and who have now been diagnosed with rare cancers, including blood cancers. That issue has been raised in recent months by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham).
I understand that the Ministry of Defence is currently working to test engine exhaust emissions and to develop a clearer understanding of the health challenges facing veterans, including rare cancers related to their service. Those are welcome steps, but they are insufficient. Although I am conscious that the MOD does not unequivocally recognise the link between exhaust fumes and such cancers, and that I am not addressing the Minister for Veterans, I urge the Minister to do all he can to accelerate the collation of veterans’ health data, which is an essential project that could otherwise drag on, and to support the development of cancer screening programmes for veterans who may be at risk due to their record of serving this country.
Cancer can touch any life. It can come unexpectedly, and it can come cruelly. The Bill offers hope to all those whose cancer has been neglected and disregarded in drug research and clinical trials, but has upended their entire life. It offers us the chance to say to all those people, “You are not alone and you are not forgotten.”
Winning the battle against rare cancers requires us to advance on many fronts at once, so I gently push the Minister, even as he supports the Bill becoming law, to consider the vital calls from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients, which have shown too little improvement for too long. Will the Minister commit to a target of getting 200 glioblastoma patients on to promising new clinical trials every year? Will he engage with the private sector to urge pharmaceutical companies to more rapidly make their drugs available for those trials? Will he consider mandating training in brain cancer specific oncology for all doctors seeking to become medical oncologists? Will he also ensure that all neuro-oncology multidisciplinary teams have as a core member a medical oncologist able to contribute their expertise to a patient’s care?
Finally, even as we advance the Bill today, we must not lose sight of the need to do far better by patients with cancer, rare or not. One of the most reassuring aspects of this Bill has been its cross-party support, but while I am here, I want to ask the Minister whether he will listen to Liberal Democrat calls and turn the current target of starting treatment within 62 days of an urgent cancer referral into an iron-clad guarantee? Will he also consider our call to expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as another way of ensuring that innovative drugs are not snarled up in red tape and that they reach patients faster?
There is much work left to do, but today’s legislation is a real step in the right direction. I take note of the humbleness of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, so I will speak about the reach of the Bill and his work. Good politics changes lives and the best politics saves lives. All of us here in this place are committed to do that. I am proud to support this Bill, and I urge Members to vote for all those lives that the Bill could help save and for those families whose lives it will change.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his tireless work on the Bill. If anyone gets the opportunity to listen to the podcast he did a few weeks ago, it is well worth listening to—really insightful. He offers the opportunity to address the deep inequalities faced by people diagnosed with rare and less common cancers. In fact, this is the second debate on rare cancers that I have attended this week. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) mentioned the previous debate; I had the pleasure of sitting alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) in that debate on myeloma—a rare blood cancer that affects just a few thousand people a year in the UK. However, there is a concern of the link between the condition and people flying helicopters in the military.
As we have heard, around 180,000 people are diagnosed with a rare or less common cancer every year. Last year, one of those was my constituent Isaac Wilton, and his story will be the basis of my speech. I had the pleasure of meeting Isaac last year. He was diagnosed with a grade 4 glioblastoma brain tumour at just 21—he had a seizure during a workout at the gym. His sister Harriet set up a fundraiser to pay for immunotherapy, and within the first six days they raised £144,000. Isaac and his family have organised various events to support the cause, including charity football matches and community events. Last October, family and friends joined Isaac to walk from Leicester City football club to Coalville clock tower, covering 13 miles—an extraordinary feat. The campaign is now at an incredible £193,000, just shy of its £200,000 goal to pay for Isaac’s treatment. His fundraising not only helps him access life-altering treatment, but raises vital awareness about the urgent need for more brain tumour research, which receives around just 1% of national cancer research funding.
Isaac’s voice matters much more than mine in this debate, and I would like to share something he has written with the House:
“The disease I’m fighting, that gives every single person diagnosed such a poor prognosis, only allows for a little hope. Living a life day to day almost waiting for the bad news. I’m one of the lucky ones. One of the lucky ones who was able to see a community of over 15,000 people come together. Some of which I knew and some from overseas…to raise enough money for me to at least explore other options that I cannot be given through the NHS. Options that might just give me a second chance. But me and others in this fight should be given a fair chance to win this battle because the chances right now are heartbreaking.”
This Bill will give hope to Isaac and others in his position. As we have heard, we are not talking about a minority. In the UK, 47% of cancer diagnoses and 55% of all cancer deaths are from rare and less common cancers. A system that leaves nearly half of cancer patients behind is not a fair system—not for Isaac, not for the father-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, and not for many others we have heard about today. I will support the Bill today, and I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly dedicated hard work in bringing forward this change.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work on the Bill, and all those who have supported its progress.
I rise briefly for two reasons. First, to speak for a constituent, Kate, who is only 40 years old and has an inoperable brain cancer. Kate contacted me this week to tell me about her case and to encourage me to support the Bill. She is under the care of 10 consultants and specialists as her condition worsens. Research on brain cancers and glioblastomas has hardly progressed in 50 years, yet it is the biggest cancer killer in children and adults under the age of 40. The Bill should improve the rate of cancer patients who are offered trials; currently, 82% are not and that is not good enough. The Bill should improve those chances.
I also rise to join the tributes to Dr Susan Michaelis, who passed away on Wednesday, for her campaigning for the better treatment of lobular breast cancer. I met Dr Michaelis in October last year, and was moved by her advocacy for improvements in treatment, and subsequently, by her support for the Bill.
For Kate, Susan and many others, it is important that the Bill passes today. Please do support it.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I do not want to detain the House too long. I just want to put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) in guiding the Bill to this point and now hopefully forward—with a former Member of this House, Julie Elliott, now Baroness Elliott, in the House of Lords. When I met my hon. Friend to berate him about why he should take up this issue, I did not know about his father-in-law, but I have to say how proud his family must be of what he has done here. I mention that point because it is a motivator for all of us. When we understand the true desperation of facing these problems, it can often be the driver to make us work harder for achievement.
I am delighted to say that 10 days ago, with the kindness of Mr Speaker, we launched the first glioblastoma drug trial in memory of my late sister. It will be run by Dr Paul Mulholland, who is, regrettably, too well known to many Members. He is Europe’s leading consultant on glioblastoma, based out of University College London, and the trial will include 16 patients at University College hospital who are newly diagnosed. They will have had no treatment and no surgery, and will be treated with immunotherapy. We are excited and delighted by the trial. It opened last Friday and Dr Mulholland met the first recruit last Monday.
This could be the start of great things, but it is the start of a journey. It is a journey that is incomprehensibly difficult and requires a wonderful set of circumstances: Europe’s leading consultant at a big teaching hospital in London, next to a world-leading university; a group of my sister’s friends who campaigned tirelessly to raise funds, raising over £1 million in the last year—the trial will cost something in that order; and a Secretary of State for Health and Social Care who gave us excellent support and intervened to help us to get to the point of starting the trial.
Those efforts are not available to everybody. We need to change things to get more trials. Without trials, there will be no progress, and I know from my own experience that there will be no progress, even with this brilliant Bill, unless we all, as Members, insist on progress and keep an eye on it. I am so thrilled that so many people, on the Labour Benches and in all parties across the House, are united in their commitment to see progress on glioblastoma. We want to see hope not only for glioblastoma victims but for the victims of all rare cancers. By starting with glioblastoma, we start with the worst. We will not cease our campaign until everybody has a fair chance of a cure.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and I thank her for everything she has done on this issue. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for taking up this Bill and getting it to this stage.
As I suspect many Members did, I rearranged my diary at short notice to be here, because we thought there might be a risk of the Bill not going through, but I am glad that that does not appear to be transpiring. I am here for three reasons. One is obviously the merits of this Bill, which recommend themselves entirely to all sides of the House. The second is the excellent whipping by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden—I think most of the London parliamentary Labour party are secreted around the building just in case they should be needed. Thirdly, and above all, it is because of my experience of what constituents of mine have gone through, and I am sure that goes for all Members here; the emails were pinging in yesterday saying, “You need to be there tomorrow”.
I want to briefly mention two cases. The first is that of my Chiswick constituent Rob King. I will read a few words of his, because he says what needs to be said more eloquently than I could:
“During early 22 my wife Marie felt extremely tired. We thought three children, busy life. Weeks later she had a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and we were faced with no treatment options beyond chemotherapy to possibly extend her life by a short while. We didn’t know timeframe, but she had just six months of life remaining. The chemotherapy was brutal. Relentless. She died aged 39 in October 2022, just days off her 40th birthday. What she endured, nobody should have to endure. How she endured this is still beyond my comprehension.
What this misses is the impact on those around her. The parents in their 70s who lost their daughter. The siblings left without a sister, without an auntie for their children. Her husband, me, left dealing with things never planned, never envisaged in life. And most importantly three little children, aged at the time one and a half, five and seven. Having the conversation to say mummy is never coming back will haunt me forever—explaining to an infant what is a rare cancer and why it cannot be fixed because there is no treatment. The impact of this rolls on as they get older.
Rare cancers are not rare. They hugely impact everyone around individuals affected. We urgently need some direction from Government to focus on these, give those affected some hope, and longer term see some results.”
The second case is of Katie Bernard and her son Alex. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden knows this case because she helped with it. Alex suffered from a brain tumour so rare that I think there have only been 100 cases diagnosed around the world. His parents went to extraordinary lengths to get drugs delivered. Almost on a daily basis we were monitoring the pharmacies and hospitals, ensuring that he had treatment. He did get the treatment and it did prolong his life, but sadly Alex passed away on 30 January this year, aged just 23.
There are many more cases like Marie and Alex, and it is for them that the Bill has been brought forward. It is not the only thing that needs to be done, but it is an important step forward. I hope that, by passing it through the House today and it being enacted later this year or early next year, we will make a change. I thank all Members who have contributed or been here today. I know that my constituents and theirs will be listening to this debate and hoping for the Bill’s success.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Stella Gilbert, née Forster, was a much-beloved wife, mother, grandmother and sister to my partner, Jim. She died of a rare cancer. Stella was great—my partner’s only sibling, a huge matriarch and, as we found out at her funeral, given to bossing her local vicar about. She had bile duct cancer, which affects approximately 2,000 people a year in the UK.
In the Bill’s terms, bile duct cancer is a rare cancer; the Bill classes rare cancers as those that affect no more than one in 2,000 people, and bile duct cancer affects 0.06 in 2,000. Worryingly, research suggests that that incidence is increasing. I am grateful that the Bill allows for some flexibility, because if bile duct cancer were to pop over that cut-off of one in 2,000, it would go into a different category. That flexibility is appreciated.
Guts UK states that the cause of bile duct cancer is unknown in six to seven out of 10 patients. It is a rare cancer that is increasing in prevalence, often with causes unknown, and nearly 3,000 people a year die from it. Would it not be better therefore not only to prevent this cancer from increasing in prevalence, but to make it even rarer and more curable? The Bill opens the door to that. It will allow for more focus on rare and less survivable cancers.
Research is crucial in tackling cancer, and I am heartened by this Government’s commitment to tackling all cancer types. A national cancer plan is due to be published following the NHS 10-year health plan, and the DHSC has committed more than £1.6 billion for research to the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is quite rightly treating cancer as a major priority and allocating funding accordingly.
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on the less survivable cancers, I am particularly grateful for the commitment to tackling brain cancer, which I have heard a lot about in this place today, in partnership with organisations such as the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission and Brain Tumour Research. I also welcome the funding call for the brain tumour research consortium, which I read about recently.
I cannot stand in this place and debate a Bill on rare cancers and not mention pancreatic cancer, which is a relatively rare cancer and a less survivable one. It is the fifth biggest cancer killer in the UK. My mum, Breeda, died of pancreatic cancer. She fell ill on a Saturday, was diagnosed on the Sunday and was dead by the following Saturday. One week after that, my father died of oesophageal cancer—not a rare cancer, I believe, but a less survivable one. My sister’s mother-in-law, Doreen, also sadly passed from pancreatic cancer after a year-long battle. We are, indeed, surrounded by cancer. The APPG has addressed the issue of the early detection of such cancers, so we hope to one day hear fewer stories like my mum’s. I thank Pancreatic Cancer UK for its support.
I welcome the Bill, which offers an entirely reasonable set of steps for researching, reviewing and, I hope, enabling the development of so-called orphan drugs—like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I dislike the term intensely. The appointment of a national specialty lead for rare cancers will be so helpful in and of itself.
In passing the Bill today, we will start the journey to a world where wonderful people, like Jim’s sister Stella, my mum Breeda and my sister’s mother-in-law Doreen, do not hear the words, “It is inoperable. It is too late to treat. There is nothing more we can do.” I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for introducing the Bill. I will vote for it today, in memory of Stella, Breeda and Doreen.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
There have already been some emotional speeches, which are already making me cry. I thank everyone who has spoken today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing this important Bill. [Interruption.] I have started crying already. The Bill is particularly important to me, because my mum died of a brain tumour. Too many families face a diagnosis that often comes too late, with limited access to specialised care and clinical trials.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill’s mechanism relating to orphan drugs is essential? Unless we can get the pharmaceutical industry to find it in its financial interest to start trials, we will not make any progress.
Harpreet Uppal
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with everything she said.
There is no doubt that, for patients and their families, an additional challenge of a rare cancer is navigating the systems themselves, many of which are not built with rare cancers in mind. I know from conversations with residents and organisations in Huddersfield just how isolating that can be. Being told that you have a rare form of cancer, and struggling to get answers or the standard of treatment that others receive, is really difficult. This Bill will play a part in extending the lives of people facing cancer, and it will help their families. Getting targeted research and clear care pathways will be really important, and I have no doubt that improving patient recruitment into clinical trials for rare cancers will mean so much to those families.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, as well as the Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and all the charities that have pushed this Bill forward.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and congratulate him on bringing this crucial Bill before the House. I pay tribute to him and to every Member who has spoken so powerfully today. When this Bill becomes law, it will ease pain, save lives, and ensure justice and fairness in relation to a disease that is indiscriminate. A number of constituents have contacted me, urging me to support the Bill today. They all have their own stories—their own first-hand experience—each one so moving and powerful. Today, though, I want to relay the story of one of them: Chelsea.
Chelsea is a 31-year-old mother to a 10-year-old boy. She was diagnosed with a rare, aggressive form of sarcoma in April 2024. For more than a year before her diagnosis, Chelsea did everything right—she made repeated visits to the GP and to A&E, clearly presenting with symptoms that should have been checked out, but time and again, her concerns were dismissed. She was not listened to; she was ignored, and that failure led to a devastating delay in diagnosis. By the time she was taken seriously, her cancer had progressed to stage 4. She has endured two major surgeries and has now been on oral chemotherapy for over a year, and will remain on it for three more. Her risk of recurrence is extremely high.
Chelsea’s story is heartbreaking, but it is not unique. I am just thankful that she is still here for her son and loved ones, and I will do everything I can to ensure she gets the best treatment available as quickly as possible. Too many people with rare cancers are forced to fight not just the disease, but the system—a system that fails to recognise the symptoms early, under-invests in research, and leaves patients feeling unheard and alone. I am so proud to support this Bill, and I am so thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for bringing it before the House today.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Like everyone else, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing this important Bill before the House. I had not intended to speak in this debate; I was simply going to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), but she spoke so comprehensively that it would have been wrong to interrupt her. She spoke about the personal motivation that has brought so many of us to the Chamber today. I have just been listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), who spoke about her own situation, as have many other Members.
This year, it is 60 years since my father died of oesophageal cancer and 50 years since my mother died of stomach cancer, both of which are rare cancers. If I said that the treatment in those days was rudimentary, I would be lying; it was cruel. What they went through was awful, and it is appalling that only now, 60 years later, are we in this House trying to change that. This is an historic Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden—I know what this campaign has meant to her, and to all who loved her sister. I ask the Minister to make sure that everything in this Bill is done as swiftly as possible. We cannot wait any longer.
Sir Christopher Chope
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). I echo his tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who continues to be a pioneer in this campaign and is what I would describe as a no-nonsense lady. She has been in this place since 1997, and she has made and continues to make an enormous contribution.
This Bill will hopefully be an exemplar for Members who are successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot. So often, those who are successful in the ballot are told, “Here’s a handout Bill—we need to fill a little niche here in a bit of legislation.” The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) has used his good fortune in having success in the ballot to bring forward something that he wanted to do and that meant a lot to him, but he did not do it selfishly; he did it after listening to a whole lot of other people and realising that this is a subject on which there is deep-seated consensus, unrest and concern among parliamentarians. Full marks to him for doing this.
I was only once successful in the private Members’ Bills ballot, and it was just after the rules were changed, so even though I came third out of the hat, I was No. 17, because it was done in reverse order so that it looked better on television. I think the previous Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means was responsible for that change. I have never had the good fortune of having a Bill that has been able to make progress; it is something I still look forward to and yearn for.
This is a really important subject. When we look at the Second Reading debate, in which I was briefly able to participate by way of an intervention, we can see the strength of feeling.
I go back to the Minister’s response to my amendments on Report. I hope he will be a bit more helpful on Third Reading about the role of NHS England and what will happen. I have paid tribute to him for agreeing that priority should be given to getting on with setting up these research bodies and looking into these issues. It is asking too much for the Government to agree to put those things on the face of the Bill, but I think it is clear from the pressure that is already on the Minister that his Department—however much it may have dragged its feet in the past—is now intent on rectifying that.
Most important of all, we will get the Government’s cancer plan. Let us hope that it will not be on the slow burner—we are promised it before the end of the year, and I hope it will be nearer this end of the year than next year. That could be very important, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, it links in with a lot of what we have discussed today.
Cancer needs to be taken more seriously in this country. We need to invest more. We need to get back to the top of the international league table, where we should be, as a leading nation with a very strong economy. I see in today’s news that the economy is shrinking, but that should not be a reason not to campaign to get these cancers shrunk.
Dr Luke Evans
I again thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his tireless work on this important Bill. It has united the House, and rightfully so, because it speaks to something fundamental: the need for people with rare cancers to be seen, heard and addressed.
The Opposition have supported the Bill from the outset, and as the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) have said, we will continue to do so today. We would like to thank the charities and campaigners who have worked tirelessly to bring this issue forward: Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Brain Tumour Charity, Cancer52 and many more. Their work has helped to put rare cancers firmly on the agenda, and this Bill is part of their legacy.
I have been on the other side of this, delivering the news, particularly when I worked on an upper gastrointestinal hospital ward as a junior doctor. Delivering the news that someone has pancreatic cancer is one of the toughest things I have ever had to do, and it is worse still for the relatives who have to receive that news. I long for a day when no doctor has to deliver a death sentence to a patient, and this Bill brings that a step closer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham spoke in Committee about the repurposing of drugs, and I want to highlight its importance. Treatments that were developed for other conditions may be lifesaving for people with rare cancers. It is vital that the Bill’s scope allows for innovation to thrive. Conservative Members urge the Government to embed the provisions of the Bill in the forthcoming national cancer plan. I hope the Minister will confirm that that will happen, and hopefully he will tell us when it will be published.
Finally, as the expert jeweller, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said on Report—his keen eye for a flaw is important—there is the glaring problem of the pending abolition of NHS England, which poses practical questions about data sharing and, of course, oversight. Conservative Members will do all we can to ensure that the legislation remains workable under the new structures, and I hope the Government will do that too.
The Bill will not solve everything overnight, but it is a serious step forward and a statement that even the rarest conditions deserve our fullest attention. As Maya Angelou said,
“when you know better, do better.”
The House knows better, thanks to the tireless work of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, and the Bill will help ensure that we do better too.
Stephen Kinnock
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). It is a huge achievement for a colleague who has only served in this place for just over a year to have got a Bill this far. I thank hon. Members across the House who have spoken in the debate so powerfully and movingly, as well as all those who sat on the Bill Committee. We welcome effective scrutiny from Committees, and we value the vital role that Parliament plays in holding us to account. I pay tribute to the charities that are backing the Bill, many of which we are engaging with on the development of our national cancer plan.
The Government want to go further for everyone diagnosed with a rare cancer, and the Bill will act to incentivise the recruitment to, oversight of and accessibility of rare cancer research, so that NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments. We know the benefits of embedding clinical research across the NHS and beyond. It leads to better care for patients and more opportunities for our workforce, and it provides a huge economic benefit for our health and care system.
On 3 July, we published our 10-year health plan, which sets out the vision to distribute power to patients and revitalise our NHS, making it fit for the future. The plan will deliver three shifts in care to ensure that the health service can tackle the problems of today and tomorrow, all of which will be key to tackling cancer. Through the 10-year health plan we will ensure that patients receive the most cutting-edge treatment, and that everyone can search for research studies through the Be Part of Research service on the NHS app.
That is why we welcome the Bill, which is aligned with our commitments. It raises the profile of rare cancer research, ensures our international regulatory competitiveness, and allows rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about research opportunities. That innovation will be delivered through Be Part of Research, our flagship research registry delivered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which allows people from all walks of life to sign up and get involved in research across the UK. I urge everyone watching this debate, and Members in the Chamber who are interested, to sign up to Be Part of Research, and see what research opportunities are relevant to them.
The Government want to give all rare cancer patients access to clinical trials, and greater choice and control over their healthcare. That is why we are delighted to pledge Government support for the Bill. As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to ensuring that the clinical research ecosystem is more efficient, competitive and accessible, and the provisions in the Bill align with that. We want the UK to lead the world in this space as the prime destination for clinical research.
The Government also want to give patients greater choice and control over their healthcare, and rare cancer patients should have access to vital research if they choose to. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for presenting the Bill, and those Members who served on the Committee. I pay tribute to all the charities that are backing this important Bill. The Government support the Bill, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to improve outcomes for rare cancer patients across our country.
Dr Arthur
With the leave of the House, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I will not thank them all as I want to keep an eye on the time, but I will single out my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for helping me to start out on this journey. When I first met her, I thought she was driven by grief at the loss of her sister, but I now know that she is driven by her love for her sister. That is an important difference. I also thank the many people who used the debate to celebrate the life of Dr Susan Michaelis and who continue to support the lobular moonshot project that she left behind. We wish them well. I am sure that we will keep her family in our minds today.
I thank the DHSC civil servants, some of whom are with us today, for their support throughout the Bill’s passage. I must also pay tribute to the Minister for his support, as well as the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—we all know who she is—for the comprehensive backing that she has provided throughout. I was at an event on Monday with both the pharmaceutical industry and some of the charities supporting the Bill, and they all have huge respect for the work she is doing.
I really thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for his supportive comments on behalf of the Opposition, which went well beyond what I thought was reasonable. [Interruption.] I was trying to phrase that in the proper way. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for whipping us all on these Friday mornings and helping us along the way—just as he enters the Chamber.
I must also thank the many charities who have been at the centre of this process. There are somewhere between 30 and 40 of them, and I mentioned the key ones earlier. Many hon. Members said—quite politely—that they had received quite a lot of emails over the last few days, perhaps stimulated by the submission of amendments to the Bill. I think that the charities sent about 120,000 emails this week, which is incredible. As hon. Members can imagine, my inbox is a bit of a mess just now, but that tells us how important the Bill is for them. They have waited a long time for this opportunity, and I really thank them for urging me along.
I must also thank Sonia from H/Advisors Cicero for her help in recent weeks as we approached Committee and as we have started to think about the transition to the Lords with some optimism. She and her husband Dan have been fantastic. I must also thank my team in my office for the support they have given me. I thank in particular Noel and Tommy but also Lucie, Hannah, Salim, Maisie, Joe, Xavier and Evie—that is quite a long list of names because we have a slightly complicated situation with our interns just now.
I look forward to the Bill’s continued support. I hope that it will pass today. As has been outlined, when it—hopefully—reaches the House of Lords, it will be in the safe hands of a formidable woman; I have great confidence in her.
First and foremost, I thank residents in Edinburgh South West for electing me and giving me the chance to bring the Bill forward. I did not know it at the time, but without their electing me, I would not be standing here to champion the Bill. I look forward to it receiving support today and to continuing to champion it as it moves to the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.