(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am told that the Minister is on her way, but we will proceed because so many people want to speak. I remind Members to bob if they intend to make a speech, to give me a fighting chance of working out how long each Member will have to speak. It looks like Back Benchers will have an average of three minutes each, once we start.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered less survivable cancers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; also, a family member has shares in a medical company. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, which I first asked for six months ago—[Interruption.]
Clive Jones
Yes, that was the Minister calling me to apologise. [Laughter.]
I asked the Committee for the debate six months ago, but having it one month before the probable publication of a national cancer plan is not a bad date for it. I also thank the less survivable cancers taskforce, Cancer Research UK and Myeloma UK for their help and guidance in securing and preparing for this debate.
As I have mentioned many times here and in the main Chamber, I am a cancer survivor. The experience has shown me how important early diagnosis and effective treatment are to our outcomes. My diagnosis was delayed, because I was sent away by the first GP I saw and had to wait several months again before being diagnosed with breast cancer. Fortunately, my treatment was successful, but many others are not so lucky, especially those with less survivable cancers.
Every year in the UK, 90,000 people are diagnosed with a less survivable cancer—cancers of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach. Together, they represent 40% of all cancer deaths and account for 67,000 deaths every year. The less survivable cancers have been overlooked for far too long. While many other cancers have seen major advancements in survival, survival rates for those six cancers have remained staggeringly low for the past 25 years. The collective five-year survival rate for those cancers is just 16%. The sad reality for the 90,000 people diagnosed with one of the cancers is that 75,000 will not survive more than five years. That is a school play someone will not see, a set of exam results that they will miss, or a first day at university, a graduation, a significant birthday of their own or of a loved one, or the birth of a grandchild that someone will not see.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, in particular given his personal circumstances. He rightly outlined the need for early diagnosis. Does he agree that that is particularly true of those of us who are males, who sometimes have an extreme reluctance to go to a GP to ascertain what might be wrong? That needs to be addressed urgently.
Clive Jones
It does. The more that people like me and others who have survived cancer talk about it, and about our experience of a delay and having the cancer spread, the more that will help others to come forward.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and the excellent speech he is making. He mentioned that the Government have said they will shortly publish the national cancer plan, which will include details of how they will improve outcomes for patients, speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients have access to new treatments and technology, and above all, improve cancer survival rates. Does he agree that it is critical that the plan also features key measures to address less survivable cancers, including supporting the roll-out of innovative detection tests and evaluating their use, supporting campaigns to raise awareness of symptoms, and producing a strategy for earlier and faster diagnosis?
Clive Jones
The hon. Member makes a very good intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that this is covered in the national cancer plan. From what I am hearing, I am optimistic that it will be.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. My constituent Fiona Tweedie asked me to attend this debate because she sadly lost her husband to a brain tumour last year. She asked me to flag, in relation to the national cancer strategy, the fact that it is very difficult in Scotland to access clinical trials, and if someone is based in Scotland, they cannot access English trials. Does the hon. Member agree that this needs to be a genuinely national strategy, and that it must not allow different parts of the UK to take different directions?
Clive Jones
The hon. Member makes a good point; we definitely need more clinical trials in this country. We have been lagging behind in the last few years, and we need them nationally, rather than just in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That would be advantageous for both drug companies and the people who benefit from those trials.
For many of these less survivable cancers, survival rates in the UK lag behind other countries. We can see from our international counterparts, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the US, that progress is achievable, and that system reforms can play a key role in driving better patient outcomes. For example, the UK is ranked 29th out of 33 countries for pancreatic cancer survival. It is fair to ask the Minister: why is the UK ranked so low? It is also fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson): why are we ranked so low after the Conservatives’ 14 years in Government? Perhaps it is due to the challenges in how our healthcare and cancer services are organised, and our service delivery, rather than the availability of treatment options. It is vital that we learn from our international counterparts and understand what systemic changes they have made to drive progress.
The all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers, of which I am a member, launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis. During the inquiry, the APPG heard from people with lived experience—clinicians, researchers, charities and the industry—about what vital measures are needed in the national cancer plan to improve earlier detection and faster diagnosis. The APPG found that if earlier diagnosis rates were doubled, an additional 7,500 lives would be saved every year. Deaths from those cancers could quickly be reduced by 10%.
Faster diagnosis is integral to saving lives and improving outcomes for people impacted by less survivable cancers. Simply put, it enables patients to access treatment and care much quicker, increasing their chances of survival. We are currently far from achieving this: just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared with 54% for all other cancers. Concerningly, brain tumours are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is closely linked to worse outcomes.
That is common for myeloma patients—an incurable blood cancer. A third of people with myeloma are diagnosed via emergency presentation. Like the delay in diagnosing less survivable cancers, this means that their cancer has progressed untreated, and the condition has become more advanced, so their ability to tolerate treatments may be seriously hampered. The APPG’s inquiry produced some recommendations for the Government that illustrate the broad range of actions needed to achieve earlier detection and faster diagnosis, from equipping GPs with better tools and rolling out targeted screening programmes to promoting greater research into innovative diagnostics.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this invaluable debate. My constituent Billy was just four years old when he passed away due to DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma—which is an incurable child brain tumour cancer. Every nine days a child is diagnosed with it. At the request of Billy’s parents I asked the Government whether there was any more they could do for brain cancer research. I am delighted that the Government have since announced that they have allocated £13.7 million in funding to the National Institute for Health and Care Research brain tumour research consortium. Does my hon. Friend agree that allocating research into rarer cancers not only benefits the children who suffer from these horrific diseases but enhances our research and development capability more broadly, clinically, which is also a vital industry for the UK?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions have to be a lot shorter. If Members are on the list to speak, it would be helpful if they saved their points for their speeches so that we can fit everyone in.
Clive Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I am really sorry to hear about young Billy. The £13.7 million being put into research has to be welcomed and we should thank the Government for that.
The first recommendation is to invest in greater research, detection tests, and tools to support GPs when identifying the symptoms of less survivable cancers. GPs face difficulties in identifying vague symptoms linked to less survivable cancers, especially as they see only a small number of cases each year, and many of the symptoms overlap with those of less serious health conditions. For example, a patient with oesophageal cancer might suffer from nausea and have difficulty breathing.
I saw that lack of exposure at first hand. The first GP that I saw did not think that as a man I would be able to have breast cancer. Patients often visit their GP multiple times before being referred for further diagnostic tests. For example, currently people with pancreatic cancer visit their GP between two and five times before being referred for a CT scan. GPs lack the necessary detection tools and tests to easily identify vague symptoms earlier. But it does not have to be this way. Innovative technologies, such as Dxcover for brain cancer and Cytosponge for oesophageal cancer, are already in development and can help healthcare professionals to identify those cancers earlier and more easily.
The second recommendation is to bring together research and medical communities and establish centres of excellence for each of the less survivable cancers as key forums for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Collaboration between researchers and the medical community is essential for enhancing innovation and successfully embedding new diagnostic tools into the health system. Centres of excellence can connect specialists across research and clinical sectors, bolstering knowledge sharing and enhancing collaboration. Centres of excellence should be established by the national research community, supported by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There should also be more collaboration with colleagues across the world.
Thirdly, we have to develop a centralised, nationwide case-finding programme to proactively identify high-risk individuals across multiple cancer types, building on the work already undertaken by the NHS on new onset diabetes and weight loss. To achieve faster diagnosis we must expand efforts to identify those at high risk of developing a less survivable cancer across the country. As I have already said, many healthcare professionals say every day of the week, “When cancer is detected earlier, we significantly increase patients’ chances of survival.” That is particularly true for liver cancer. When detected earlier, nearly 50% of patients with liver cancer survive for over five years compared with only 5% of those who were diagnosed at stage 4.
For those diagnosed with less survivable cancers, faster access to treatment is critical. Treatment delays cost lives. That is true of all cancers, but particularly of the less survivable ones, which progress rapidly and require specialised treatment and care. The national cancer plan offers a crucial opportunity to tackle the systemic barriers currently preventing patients from getting faster access to treatment. Variation in patient pathways, lack of diagnostic capacity and shortages across our specialist oncology and supportive care workforce have all contributed to poor access to treatment for patients affected by these cancers.
Three in four hospitals are currently failing to meet their cancer waiting time targets. According to analysis in The Guardian, 73% of trusts are failing to meet their 62-day cancer waiting time standard. One statistic I repeat time and again is that not a single NHS trust has met the 62-day target since 2015. That failure has been allowed for 10 years. It is again fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister why, when the party was in government for so long.
This is felt more acutely for less survivable cancers, which already have some of the lowest treatment rates. For instance, 70% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer receive no active treatment. There is a similar picture at the Royal Berkshire hospital, where many of my constituents are patients. In 2024 alone, more than 70% of stomach cancer patients, 58% of those with pancreatic cancer and 69% of oesophageal cancer patients waited more than 62 days from urgent GP referral to treatment. That is far outside the NHS target of starting treatment for 85% within that time.
Some Royal Berkshire hospital patients are left waiting more than four months—in extreme cases more than six months—for treatment to begin, and that is not acceptable. To improve access to treatment, the Government should set tumour-specific standards through the modern service framework that has been committed to in the NHS 10-year plan, starting with the cancers with the poorest operational performance. That must include establishing minimum standards and clearer strategic priorities to support local delivery of pathway improvements for cancer.
The best way to achieve that would be to develop national, standardised, optimal pathways across the whole patient journey for different types of cancer. Where already available, those should be based on existing insight from the national clinical audits and the Getting It Right First Time programme. To achieve maximum impact, the Government must ensure that 62-day cancer waiting time targets are met and then reduced to much less than 62 days. The current standard is too low for rapidly increasing cancers such as the less survivable ones. That is crucial, because it would ensure that more people were well enough to tolerate treatment.
Research and development is also important as part of improving treatment effectiveness and diagnostics. Research into less survivable cancers has historically been underfunded, and that must change, as recognised by clinicians and many others. Isla, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has started a petition calling for more funding of research into pancreatic cancer, and it has attracted more than 200,000 signatures. Poor survival outcomes result in fewer patients taking part in clinical trials and studies, and that in turn contributes to fewer breakthroughs and less research investment—a vicious cycle that can and must be broken. Consistent, sustained research is crucial for delivering breakthroughs.
The Rare Cancers Bill, which is progressing through Parliament, has the potential to transform research into less survivable cancers. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for sponsoring the Bill and for all his work on cancer policy. He is a true champion for cancer patients in this Parliament. The Rare Cancers Bill is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation that has the potential to deliver the essential research investment and focus needed to unlock breakthroughs and drive better patient outcomes. If passed, the Bill would ensure there was a named lead in the Government with a responsibility to support research and innovation for these cancers. The Bill would improve patient access to relevant research and clinical trials, and it would place a duty on the Government to review and reform orphan drug regulations to incentivise greater research into treatments for rare cancers.
The Government need to act now to improve survival outcomes for less survivable cancers. Investment and reform are needed to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment, and investment in research is essential to reaching this aim. With upcoming legislation on cancer care, there is a real opportunity for the Government to act now, to be bold and to erase the previous Government’s failure to prioritise cancer diagnosis, treatment, care and outcomes.
The Minister will know from this debate that I and many other colleagues here today, and many who are not able to attend, will be watching her actions and the actions of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. We will be expecting results and massive improvements in the coming years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Paulette Hamilton, I want to say that we will stick to a three-minute limit, but it is very tight. I may have to shave a minute or two off the Front-Bench speeches at the end so that I can get everyone in. We will see how it goes.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate and for his tireless work campaigning for better outcomes for all affected by the least survivable cancers. For too long, these cancers have been neglected and left behind. Patients and their loved ones have had to bear the devastating costs alone.
As chair of the all-party group on less survivable cancers, I urge the Government to make this a reality by prioritising in their plan the improvement of early diagnosis for these six cancers—brain, lung, oesophagus, pancreas, stomach and liver—which remain some of the toughest to diagnose. For decades, GPs have struggled to identify the vague symptoms linked with these cancers without the necessary diagnostic tools and tech to support early diagnosis. Tragically, this means that more than 70% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and face the heartbreaking news that it is too late.
Targeted screening plays a vital role in accelerating early detection and faster diagnosis, as we see through the successes in the NHS lung cancer screening programme. In addition to targeted screening, we want the Government to roll out the nationwide multi-cancer case-finding programme to proactively identify people at high risk of developing cancer.
I know personally just how heartbreaking less survivable cancers such as pancreatic cancer can be and the difference that early detection will make. Like many of my colleagues here today, I have seen at first hand the impact of these deadly cancers on individuals, families and loved ones. I lost my best friend in 2021. Pauline was a very vibrant woman who was looking forward to getting married. Later that year, she felt unwell. She had been to the doctor numerous times and no connection was made to cancer. She was busy planning her wedding, but because of her weight loss and continued generalised pain, she went back to the doctor. At that point, they told her that she had stage 4 pancreatic cancer and had eight weeks to live. She lived for six weeks, and then she died.
What gives me hope is the transformative role that research can play in driving early diagnosis, such as the new breath test being developed by researchers at Imperial College. As it stands, two in five people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed quite late—they will see their doctor but not get a diagnosis—and I hope that the Rare Cancers Bill and the national cancer plan will help to drive greater investment in innovation and research. I feel confident that we can deliver bigger breakthroughs and better outcomes across these six cancers. Progress is within our reach. Now it is time to act for all who are and will be affected.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing the debate. He is a truly committed campaigner on cancer care.
Over previous decades, we have managed to achieve great progress on cancer care and survival. Many cancers now have high survival rates and straightforward detection and treatment, and survivors live long and happy lives. However, that is not the case across the board, and the less survivable cancers are the prime examples. Survival rates remain stubbornly low, treatment rates are shockingly low and the situation facing someone who is diagnosed with a less survivable cancer is often unacceptable.
I want to describe how these deadly cancers, and access to care for them, impact people in rural communities such as mine. Every day that such cancers go undetected reduces the likelihood of survival, but too many constituents either struggle to secure a GP appointment or have difficulty navigating our ailing transport system to attend one. Those who have been diagnosed and are receiving specialist treatment are likely to have to journey outside North Norfolk to Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, or to Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge.
I warmly welcome the fact that Cromer hospital delivers chemotherapy to more than 30 patients a day in its new cancer centre, but there is still only one cancer treatment available within my constituency. Additionally, the loss of convalescence care beds in my area means that there are fewer opportunities for people to recover from major treatments closer to home.
Looking to the future, I am pleased to see new diagnostic tools and treatment options being brought forward by talented researchers across the country. The revolutionary breath test for pancreatic and other less survivable cancers could be a real game changer. However, I have real concerns that when those new and revolutionary tools and treatments are rolled out, rural areas such as North Norfolk may wait longer to receive the benefits. I hope the Minister can reassure me that her Department is working to ensure that any newly approved treatments and diagnostic tools will be just as easily available in rural communities as they are in the big cities.
I am grateful to all the charities that make up the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce for their hard work and advocacy for patients, survivors and loved ones who have felt overlooked for too long. They also do vital work in making us all aware of the symptoms we should watch out for, and when to speak to our GP if something does not seem right. I hope that as we come to Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, people in North Norfolk will take the time to learn the signs and symptoms, because when we catch these deadly cancers early, lives can be saved.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for organising this debate. My purpose is to find a cure for glioblastoma brain tumours, the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40, with a life expectancy from diagnosis of just nine months and a five-year survival rate of 5%. The only way to find a cure and improve outcomes for a cancer that has seen no improvement in 30 years is through drug trials.
In the absence of commercial or charitable glioblastoma drug trials, we launched our own trial in memory of my late sister, Margaret, in July last year. The trial is being run by Dr Paul Mulholland, Europe’s leading consultant on glioblastoma, who is based at University College London. It will include 16 newly diagnosed patients at University College hospital. This is a pre-surgery immunotherapy trial focused on patients who have received no prior treatment. The drug is given before surgery, allowing the immune system to attack the tumour before it is removed.
I am delighted to confirm that we have already recruited five patients and, while the trial remains at an early stage, we are encouraged by the early findings. This is only the start. This journey has proven extraordinarily difficult and has been possible only because of an alignment of factors that very few will ever encounter: access to one of Europe’s leading clinicians working from a major London teaching hospital, alongside a world-class university; a group of my sister’s friends who have campaigned tirelessly and raised more than £1 million in two years; and the engagement and backing of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to get the trial over the line.
Our ambition is to establish 10 such trials using 10 different immunotherapy drugs, but ultimately our ability to raise money will end. How can Dr Mulholland apply for funding to support the programme of trials using repurposed immunotherapy drugs? Can the Minister’s team provide a written explanation and a link setting out how a bid can be made to the NIHR to access those funds? It is a straight question, and I would welcome a straight answer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for leading today’s debate. It is good to be here, because next week is Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, which starts 12 January. We often talk about cancer in general, but speaking as my party’s health spokesman, I believe it is important to shine a light on those that are less survivable, and what more we can do to support those whose world has been turned upside down by their impact. Those low-survival cancers are lung, pancreatic, liver, brain, oesophageal and stomach. These types tend to be diagnosed later and have a five-year survival rate that is often below 16%—so we need to really focus on this issue. That survival rate compares with 50% to 60% for all cancers. I am, as always, very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I know that she will reply with dedication and give us the responses that we seek.
To give a quick Northern Ireland perspective: 62% of people diagnosed with a less survivable cancer die within one year of diagnosis; 10,300 people are diagnosed with cancer each year in Northern Ireland, and there are around 4,600 deaths annually. Cancer survival in Northern Ireland lags behind that in many comparable countries, so for certain devolved regions, more must be done to ensure that access and intervention are at a parallel with what is seen in our counterparts across the United Kingdom.
As always, I put it to the Minister that we do this together and share our research and ideas, and look at how we can do better. Queen’s University Belfast does some fantastic work. Its Lung Shot project involves experts from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and has some £300,000 in funding to study oesophageal cancer, which is often described as a “forgotten” cancer. There are so many variations within the UK; these are found in differences in treatment timing and use across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland there is a longer average wait to start both chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with other UK nations and countries abroad. Those patterns mean that patients in Northern Ireland, unlike those elsewhere in the UK, often start treatment later and receive key therapies less frequently than in higher-survival countries. We must invest in greater capacity for CT and MRI scanning and endoscopy to ensure detection. Nobody should be made to play a postcode lottery for their health.
To conclude, less survivable cancers do not have to mean less priority, urgency and hope. Behind every statistic is a person—a parent, partner, sibling or friend—whose life was cut short, not because their cancer was untreatable, but because it was found too late. If we are to do something, then we must ensure that there is the correct funding, research and incentives—not just for the mainland, but collectively for everyone throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week is an important marker in the calendar, but I want to talk about another important marker when it comes to these cancers—one that is important for me and my family anyway—because this year marks 20 years since I was made unavoidably aware of the devastation of oesophageal cancer. In May of that year, my father developed the classic symptoms: difficulty swallowing, feeling like food was getting stuck, heartburn and weight loss. He was diagnosed in August and died on 23 December: from becoming symptomatic to losing his life was just seven months. The rapidity of the decline was overwhelming. Barely had he been diagnosed than he was given a terminal diagnosis. I must admit, though, that I was not giving my father my full attention during that time. In almost any other circumstances I would have been a much more dutiful son, but my own focus was elsewhere that year. On 1 August 2006, my wife Susan also became symptomatic with oesophageal cancer. She was diagnosed on 11 September and died on 14 November.
The speed with which I read that sentence reflects the speed with which Sue died. There was barely any chance to understand what was happening, to seek help or for the family to manage. That is not unusual with these sorts of diseases. It is the sort of story that thousands of us know. Crucially, for my Southport constituency, it is also a story that disproportionately impacts people from the north-west and from north Wales. For my family, there was not any long fight or slow decline—only shock, confusion, urgent decisions and death. That is what a less survivable cancer looks like.
May I make a clear ask of the Minister today? I am asking for a personal commitment, and a commitment across Government, to drive up survival rates for all these less survivable cancers, but most urgently—for my personal history and for the geographical distribution that shows that my part of the country has higher levels than elsewhere in the UK—for oesophageal cancer. That could mean things such as early diagnosis, recognising that one size fits all does not work. It could mean fast-track treatment pathways once suspicion is raised. Above all else, it should include serious investment in experimental and pre-symptomatic techniques, finding ways to detect cancers before symptoms even appear. These are difficult cancers to deal with, and that is why they need targeted action. I am here today because two people I loved did not get the help they needed, so I urge the Government to help other families avoid that same fate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for that really moving account. We know that cancer affects us all. In my family it claimed my mum Lin; my sister-in-law Lisa and my stepmum Sally have both beaten it, and now my dad Ray is living with terminal cancer. One of my team is also undergoing treatment for cancer, so we know that it is prevalent among all our lives. All of them were fit, healthy people who did everything right, as are so many others each year who get the horrible news or—worse—turn up in A&E after becoming suddenly unwell. According to a Cancer Research study, many of those patients had visited their GP but had not been referred for tests, either because they did not meet the thresholds or because they had been missed altogether. This is not a criticism of our GPs, who are working in highly difficult situations. Indeed, when I shadowed Dr Wright from Walford Mill surgery in Wimborne, he had the sober task of sharing a diagnosis and undertaking a very personal test during his appointment, which he let me witness.
If diagnosis doubled across the six least survivable cancers alone, an additional 7,500 lives a year would be saved. Each year in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole, there are 540 diagnoses of cancer and 300 cancer deaths. Although 85% of them should be starting treatment within 62 days, the number is actually only 60%. What is the Minister doing to bridge that gap? If we met the target in my constituency, 70 additional people would be getting on with their lives. Across the country, 45,000 additional people would be given a greater chance of not just surviving but having a life shared with those they love.
Furthermore, once they get to hospital, patients are faced with out-of-date machinery and not enough specialist nurses. Macmillan Cancer Support says there is an acute shortage and calls for a cancer nurse fund to increase the numbers by 3,700. Will the future cancer strategy include such funding?
I want to speak briefly about pancreatic cancer, which claimed the life of my cousin Colin, a super-fit former Welsh Commonwealth games cyclist who died in his 50s despite the best care available. Many other constituents have written to me about poor prognosis for this treatment. They have flagged that the NHS has approved selective internal radiation therapy, but only for colorectal and liver cancers—not those whose primary cancer was in the pancreas and then spread to the liver. These families are keen for urgent trials to be undertaken to allow the treatment to be used, given the incredibly short life expectancy faced by patients. Will the Minister consider that?
We have been waiting such a long time for this cancer strategy. We need the workforce plan and the road map for the NHS plan. Nine hundred and fifty people will be diagnosed with cancer today, and those people need hope.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Forty-seven per cent of cancers diagnosed in the UK are rare and less common cancers, and 55% of deaths are from rare and less common cancers. That means that, every year, around 180,000 people will be diagnosed with a rare and less common cancer, and more than 92,000 people will die from such cancers. Blood cancer is one such cancer, and I recently met the Blood Cancer Alliance to discuss improving access to lifesaving blood cancer treatments across the UK. Over 280,000 people in the UK are living with blood cancer, and every year 40,000 more receive a diagnosis, including 5,000 children. It is the fifth most common cancer, the most prevalent childhood cancer and the third biggest cancer killer in our country. However, despite amazing advances in tech and treatment, our outcomes are falling behind in the nations.
The reason is clear: systemic barriers within the NHS and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal processes are preventing patients from accessing innovative therapies. Between 2019 and 2025, over a third of NICE appraisals for new blood cancer treatments were terminated—more than double the rate for other cancers. Those are not ineffective drugs; many are available overseas, and even privately in the UK. That creates a two-tier system in which those who can pay receive better care than those who cannot. It is unacceptable. I have been told that treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy can transform lives, extending survival and improving quality of life.
The current system, with rigid cost-effectiveness thresholds and inflexible commercial frameworks, is failing patients. That is why I warmly welcome the UK Government’s cancer plan, which represents a vital opportunity to reset our approach to cancer care and to ensure that innovation is embraced, not obstructed. By prioritising timely access to effective treatments and addressing systemic barriers, the cancer plan can help deliver world-class outcomes for patients.
I stand with the Blood Cancer Alliance and Cancer52 in calling for urgent, joined-up action from Government, NICE, the NHS and industry. Together we can ensure that every person with blood cancer has timely access to the best possible care, because survival should never depend on postcode or income.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate. It is clear that we have all been affected in one way or another by a person we love, or are fond of, being diagnosed with cancer and passing away.
While any debate covering cancer is serious, today’s debate is poignant for me. Just before Christmas, Keighley and the Worth valley lost two councillors to cancers. They were friends of mine, and I know their losses will be felt by not only their families and friends but the constituents and residents that they served, and the communities that they loved. Councillor Russell Brown served the Worth valley as a district councillor on Bradford council, and Chris Graham was a former Keighley town councillor who served the Long Lee and Parkwood wards.
While any death to cancer is tragic, it also sharpens our focus on the need to ensure that the very best treatments and research are available for as many people as possible. That of course includes rare and less survivable cancers, which, by their very nature, do not receive the same level of attention as more common types. That must change.
Let us start with the need to identify and screen cancers early. It is unacceptable that just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with 54% of all cancers. I am sure that a similar story is true for rarer cancers, which may not be considered until it is just too late. Here I must thank the work of the mobile cancer screening units that operate in Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale hospital team, which are doing lifesaving work. I hope that, as we rebuild a new Airedale hospital over the coming years, they will have a new and improved hospital to be proud of, further boosting their work.
The UK should be proud of its world-leading cancer research, and I know that this is something on which Opposition and Government colleagues agree. Indeed, the agreement on the Rare Cancers Bill is a hugely positive step to ensuring that rare cancers get the attention they deserve. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work on raising this important issue. After all, rare cancers are one in five of diagnosed cancers, and that must change.
There will inevitably be cases where screening and improved treatment are not enough. At that stage, people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley are indebted to Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice, which does excellent work in looking after those at the end of their lives. I am routinely impressed by their professionalism and compassion whenever I visit.
Finally, I would like to speak about employers’ national insurance. That issue was raised with me by Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice, which now has to pay the Treasury an additional amount, which they cannot therefore put into end-of-life care. I encourage the Minister to raise that specific case with the Chancellor, so that we can ensure that hospices get the attention they deserve and the funding they need.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate, a week ahead of Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week.
The six less survivable cancers—those of the brain, liver, lungs, pancreas, oesophagus and stomach—take 67,000 lives every year. That is equivalent to two people every week in each UK constituency—a non-trivial number. The survival rate at five years is just 16%, so for many people who get a diagnosis of one of these cancers, it must feel like a death sentence.
Too often, people with these cancers are diagnosed late. Only 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 and 2, compared with 54% of cancers overall, and too many diagnoses are made in emergency departments, where treatment choices are limited. More broadly, we should never forget that someone who is female or from an ethnic minority is much more likely to be diagnosed with cancer in A&E, which is absolutely shameful.
We know what change would look like. If we could double early diagnosis across those six cancers, we could save an additional 7,500 lives every year. That should be our goal, and that is why I am proud that this Government are focused on prioritising early detection and faster diagnosis. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), here with us today. She is respected and trusted by the wider sector to deliver that agenda as part of the cancer plan, which hopefully we will see next month.
This change can be achieved through investing in research, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), as well as supporting the roll-out of innovative tests—such as liquid biopsies and the breath test for pancreatic cancer, which we saw at the UK Labour party conference—and expanding proactive case finding for those most at risk. Centres of excellence, better data and stronger national leadership are also critical.
I speak not just as a participant in today’s debate but as the sponsor of the Rare Cancers Bill, which hon. Members have mentioned; I thank them for their kind comments. The Bill is designed to help address exactly those gaps. I introduced it after my father-in-law Ivor died of glioblastoma, the cancer type that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has dedicated so much of her life to defeating. My Bill seeks to improve data collection, increase access to clinical trials and strengthen pathways for people with rare and less survivable cancers. The voices of those patients are often not heard. I really hope that in today’s debate, people will feel that they are heard. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. Even though health is a devolved matter under Holyrood control, my contribution today will be from a Scottish perspective, because I want to speak about the situation of health inequalities that we have in Scotland and how it comes down, like everything does, to a class issue.
Shockingly, 61% of people in Scotland who are diagnosed with a cancer of the lung, liver, brain, oesophagus, pancreas or stomach die within a year of diagnosis. That is the poorest survival rate anywhere in the United Kingdom. In 2023, the Scottish Government implemented the 10-year Scottish cancer strategy, which outlined 11 ambitions designed to reduce cancer risk, provide faster and earlier diagnosis, improve cancer treatment, make cancer care fit for the future and reduce the differences exacerbated by health inequalities.
The most disadvantaged Scots suffer dire health inequalities. The most deprived areas face higher incidence. The largest gap relates to lung cancer, with risk almost four times higher in deprived groups. They also face later diagnosis, often at the emergency stage: people living in deprived areas are 50% more likely to be diagnosed via emergency admission and are thus far more likely to miss the earlier—and statistically the most successfully treatable—stages of cancer.
There are also considerable economic barriers. Socioeconomic conditions often contribute to lower symptom awareness and knowledge in the first instance, greater issues with accessing and attending appointments and a higher likelihood of exposure to harmful factors such as smoking, alcohol and obesity. Smoking is the biggest cause of cancer in Scotland, and we know that it is more common in the most deprived populations. In 2019, 32% of people in the most deprived populations smoked, compared with 6% in the least deprived. If we take being overweight and obesity together, it is the second largest preventable cause of cancer in Scotland. As with smoking, obesity rates are higher in more deprived areas.
I appreciate that it will take a huge joined-up approach across several Departments and cross-governmental working to reduce the shocking health inequalities in Scotland, but if the Minister could give an indication—either in her speech or perhaps in greater depth in a letter to me after the debate—of how the UK Government plan to do so, I would be very grateful, as would my constituents.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this vital debate on less survivable cancers.
As it is for many people across Parliament and the country, less survivable cancer is a personal fight for me. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, was diagnosed two years ago with glioblastoma, a devastating and aggressive brain tumour. His story illustrates both hope and what is still profoundly broken. Pip received pioneering oncothermia treatment from Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The treatment shrank his tumour significantly; he had a prognosis of only six months to live with his five children and wife, but two years on he is still alive and well. But that treatment remains inaccessible on the NHS: he obtained it through his family and friends crowdfunding the treatment, which illustrates how those with the means and community support can access innovation while others cannot.
Glioblastoma remains one of the hardest cancers to treat, with little improvement in survival rates compared with many other cancers. We know that research funding for brain tumours has historically lagged behind need, and it receives a tiny fraction of overall cancer research pounds, which is a scandal when the disease disproportionately affects younger adults. I support the sterling work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on trials, and I echo her ask.
I have heard from many families in my constituency of Esher and Walton whose lives have been turned upside down by rare cancers. One constituent shared the anguish of watching their partner struggle with a less common blood cancer that had no clear trial available in the UK, even though promising research was under way abroad. These stories are not isolated. They reflect systemic issues, including diagnostic delays. Here, I will bring in my lovely sister Mary, who died just before Christmas. She waited for a diagnosis, but was misdiagnosed and died from bowel cancer. Trial access is limited and specialist expertise across regions is patchy. Just 82.5% of cancer patients in Esher and Walton began treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, below the operational standard of 85%. Every per cent represents the heartbreak that my family felt this Christmas.
I also want to raise lobular breast cancer. It is the second most common form of breast cancer, yet it remains under-researched and under-supported. In collaboration with the lobular moonshot project, my constituent Kate Ford has been campaigning for the Government to commit £20 million for a dedicated research programme. However, after Kate had a meeting with the Secretary of State in July, the Government chose not to commit to that. Instead, they supported a broader research base, but that largely misses the point, because the status quo of research programmes means that rare cancers such as lobular breast cancer are effectively left behind.
Finally, I want to return to brain cancer and Owain’s law, which addresses issues where patients lose access to cutting edge therapies due to improper tissue preservation—
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. Cancer remains a most feared word. We doctors have learned to use all sorts of other words: “growths”, “tumours” and suchlike. There are relatives who will tell us, “Don’t use that word in front of the patient, for it would simply kill him.” But things have changed. Cancers that were considered incurable are now curable, and cancers for which there was no treatment are now treatable. Such is the power of scientific progress, for it is upon science that we will depend.
What exactly is a less survivable cancer? It is one defined by persistently poor outcomes across all stages. Many have mentioned the six with a survival rate at five years of only 16%. One such example was my lovely neighbour, who presented last Christmas with loss of vision in one eye. He was found to have secondary lung cancer in the retina. It was completely incurable and unamenable to any effective treatment. Sadly, he was dead within a few weeks.
Our country has a proud record of medical research. After all, it was here that we first discovered the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, when epidemiological studies of British doctors were conducted in the 1960s. When that was revealed, my own dad gave up his pipe. The greatest act of our new Government, some 60 years later, was to continue with the legislation introduced by the last Government to ban cigarette sales, eventually, for every citizen.
Clinical academics are doctors who not only teach the next generation of doctors, but translate scientific research into clinical applications and the supervision of clinical trials. I did an MD at the University of East Anglia on the clinical observation on the genetics of a rare ear disorder, so I understand the difficulties of medical research, but also the intrinsic delight that comes with unravelling the mysteries of medicine. That role is particularly critical for less survivable cancers, where progress will depend on sustained academic leadership on converting research into viable treatment.
Unfortunately, there has been a serious collapse in the number of clinical academics in our country. Many are now approaching retirement, and the levels of recruitment of young clinical academics are completely insufficient. We must address this crisis, starting with co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, so that salary equivalence is restored to retain the existing workforce on which our medical science depends. Let us do something we can actually do to make survivable cancer survivable. This is our political task.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this fantastic debate. I also thank the Members in the room for all the work they have done, and the Minister for her engagement, particularly with the Brain Cancer Justice team. I really appreciate it.
My sister Georgie received a glioblastoma multiforme diagnosis two and a half years ago. She is well, has survived longer than they gave her and is fighting like hell for Brain Cancer Justice, alongside many in this room. I praise her and her colleagues, as well as so many people in my constituency in Witney who have helped her and who suffer with this range of cancers.
I will say only two things today. First, we should explore reforming the Human Tissue Act 2004 to apply to tumour tissue a default system similar to the one we now use nationally for organ donation. To do so, Parliament would need to amend the Act to introduce a deemed consent regime for residual tumour tissue and derived data, limited to public interest cancer research, with a statutory opt-out, strict purpose limits and enhanced oversight by the Human Tissue Authority. The model would mirror the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019, which means that if someone dies their organs are automatically taken, although people or their families can opt out. We are advocating the same for our tumour tissue. Very few of us really want to hang on to our tumour tissue if we are unfortunate enough to be in that situation, but that tumour tissue has huge scientific value and we should use the data as much as we can for the public good. Denmark is a fantastic model: it has a registry-first legal architecture with mandatory health registries covering cancer diagnosis, pathology, genomics, treatment and outcomes.
Secondly, we need to double the survival rates for all less survivable cancers in the next decade. If we put that mark in the sand as our goal, and it gets into the national cancer plan, it will draw global attention and will drag resources and talent to our cause and our country. It would be good for our country, good for our patients who are suffering, and good for our economy too. If we can make that a key demand of our national cancer plan, that will be a huge plus.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for all the valuable work she does in this space, and to everyone who has shared very personal stories today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley).
Pancreatic cancer is one of the least survivable cancers. Sadly, a number of constituents have written to me about the devastating impact this disease has had on their lives. One lost her stepmother to pancreatic cancer. For months, her stepmother’s symptoms were repeatedly misdiagnosed—she was even sent home from A&E on several occasions with painkillers or antibiotics—before she was finally diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. She died just three months later, only three days after my constituent’s son was born. My constituent told me that she feels her son was robbed of a grandma.
Similarly, Jacqui wrote to tell me about the close friend she lost to pancreatic cancer and the profound effect it has had on her. Tracey, Irene and Janice also wrote to tell me about the loved ones they have tragically lost, and to advocate for better research and treatment for this cruel cancer. Each story is different, but every constituent who has written to me about pancreatic cancer has called for improved screening, earlier diagnosis and greater investment in research.
Kelly and Jennifer both wrote to me while a loved one was undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer and was forced to deal with shortages of the medication they desperately needed. It is unacceptable that patients and their families must tackle medicine shortages on top of battling cancer.
I truly believe that this Government’s 10-year health plan will support patients fighting less survivable cancers by ensuring that they have access to new treatments and technologies that can diagnose cancer earlier. We must ensure that these cancers are detected sooner and treated more effectively, so that fewer families endure the heartbreak of supporting a loved one with a less survivable cancer. Also, as the Minister has done so well, we must continue to speak out so that people become more aware of symptoms early and seek help and diagnosis.
In my remaining seconds, I pay tribute to my local hospice, the Mary Ann Evans hospice, which provides care at home for many people across my constituency and neighbouring constituencies.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I want Mr Jones to have a couple of minutes at the end, which means the Front Benchers have about eight minutes each.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) both for securing this debate and for his tireless advocacy on this subject.
In Epsom and Ewell, there are around 650 new cancer cases every year and around 240 cancer deaths, and the local integrated care board missed the 62-day treatment target as recently as October 2025. The Lib Dems have called for a guarantee that 100% of patients can start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral.
It is easy to get lost in the numbers—those who have been diagnosed with cancer, those who have not survived, the waiting times for treatment and the performance of hospitals—but behind each number is a person with a story that must be told. A constituent wrote to me about her husband, who battled pancreatic cancer. Only one in four people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer survives beyond a year. As happens in so many cases, her husband’s cancer was not diagnosed until it had become terminal. He died within six weeks of diagnosis.
A recent story shared with me by the British Liver Trust about Jane’s husband also powerfully highlights the importance of early diagnosis of liver cancer. He was known to be at high risk because of an underlying liver condition and was meant to receive regular surveillance scans. These scans were meant to detect cancer early, when treatment options are greater and outcomes can be better. However, delays and disruption to his regular surveillance scans meant that his cancer was not diagnosed until it was already advanced.
Jane believes that had her husband’s monitoring continued as planned, his cancer could have been diagnosed at an earlier stage, when potentially lifesaving treatment and interventions were still possible. Her husband’s experience is a clear reminder of the importance of regular surveillance of people who are at risk, so that liver cancer can be detected at the earliest possible stage, when lives can still be saved.
Such stories paint a stark picture of the shockingly poor outcomes for individuals diagnosed with less survivable cancers. The UK has the highest rate of oesophageal cancer in the world, and only 15% of adult patients with oesophageal cancer survive for five years or more. A mere 15% of stomach cancer patients in the UK will survive for more than 10 years. Liver cancer survival rates have hardly changed in the last decade. And despite the work to tackle smoking, lung cancer still claims the lives of around 91 people every day.
Today, on average, the chance of someone surviving for five years after being diagnosed with one of the six least survivable cancers is only 16%. For the country that discovered penicillin, designed the world’s first insulin infusion device and uncovered the structure of DNA, we are dangerously behind. OECD research shows that the UK ranks a dismal 31st out of 43 countries for how many people survive at least five years after being diagnosed with lung cancer. Across lung cancer survival rates, the UK is below the EU and OECD averages, as well as below the US, Germany and France. For all the less survivable cancers, survival rates have increased by only a small amount over the last 50 years, and all remain below 20%.
In my role as Liberal Democrat primary care and cancer spokesperson, I have spent time meeting charities to try to understand why the outcomes for patients with the six least survivable cancers are not improving. One resounding reason is research. A response to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) revealed that the Department of Health and Social Care’s funding for research into each of the less survivable cancers since 2022 is as follows: for lung cancer, £16 million; for oesophageal cancer, £9.4 million; bladder and stomach cancer, £3 million each; liver cancer, £2 million; pancreatic cancer, £0.9 million; and brain cancer, £0.6 million. That funding is pitifully low, considering that UK survival rates for many of those cancers are devastatingly behind our international counterparts. What adds to that frustration is that even after a successful innovation is found, thanks to the tireless work of researchers, implementation is simply far too slow.
The less survivable cancers taskforce told me that senior surgeons are reporting the start of a golden time for approaches to cancer, but that the UK takes too long to implement any innovations and the later stages of clinical trials drag on for too long. For example, a diagnostic test—the capsule sponge—that allows cell changes associated with oesophageal cancer to be identified has spent 20 years in the research phase. Only last year did the test enter its next trial in certain parts of the country. Although that is welcome, progress overall is far too slow.
International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data shows that in the 1990s Denmark and the UK were two of the worst performers for cancer care. While the UK has made some progress, Denmark has surged ahead. In fact, since 1995, Denmark has seen some of the biggest improvements of any ICBP member, with survival across all seven ICBP-measured cancer types increasing by more than it has in the UK. A key factor has been Denmark’s focus on using consistent cancer plans to co-ordinate investment, drive reform and develop strong clinical leadership.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer survival research Act to require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rates. Alongside that, expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency would halve the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients.
Before Christmas, I visited the Shooting Star hospice in Guildford and stood in the room where families can grieve next to their children. Many of those children receive palliative care for cancer. Every death is a tragedy, but that visit was a harrowing reminder of how quickly and devastatingly cancer takes even the youngest lives. As we enter the new year, I ask that the Minister makes it her resolution to tackle the black hole of research funding for less survivable cancers and to speed up the snail’s-pace implementation of lifesaving treatments.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate.
It is sadly the case that one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime. We all know someone who is battling cancer, someone who has beaten it and, sadly, someone whose life has been cut short by it. Cancer survival rates have consistently improved, but they are still far from where we would like them to be. When we talk about less survivable cancers, we refer particularly to six types of cancer with low survival rates: pancreatic, liver, brain, oesophageal, stomach and lung cancers. Over 90,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with one of the less survivable cancers every year—20% of cancer cases—but those cancers are responsible for 42% of cancer deaths in the UK.
I pay tribute to hon. Members who have shared their personal stories in this debate, because behind each statistic is an individual. As I prepared for this debate, I thought of my granda, who died of brain cancer; my Nana Burton, who died of lung cancer; and of my husband’s good friend and confidante, Richard, who died of oesophageal cancer.
A key reason for the troublingly disproportionate mortality rate for less survivable cancers is their later-than-average diagnosis. Just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, which is well below the 54% rate for cancers as a whole. That cuts survival rates significantly. Pancreatic cancer is particularly lethal, with less than 7% of people with pancreatic cancer in the UK surviving beyond five years.
I am pleased that the last Conservative Government launched the targeted lung health check programme in June 2022. It led to more than 5,500 people being diagnosed with lung cancer by January 2025, with 75% of cases found at stages 1 or 2 through screening. That is encouraging progress, but clearly there is much more work to be done to improve the diagnosis rates for all six less survivable cancers.
I have personally been supportive of the current Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will ban the sale of tobacco to young people born after 1 January 2009. That will tackle one of the key risk factors for lung cancer. Will the Minister update us on the Bill’s progress, given that it was introduced on 5 November 2024 and has still not passed through Parliament? Prevention is said to be a big focus for the Government, so what is the Minister doing to improve prevention and to get the Bill passed?
The APPG on less survivable cancers launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis in March 2025 and found that doubling early diagnosis could save an additional 7,500 lives a year. What is the Minister doing to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, which were published last June? In particular, what is she doing to explore the benefits of technology in commissioning new detection tests? What assessment has she made of the new VAPOR breath test for pancreatic cancer, which could support GPs in diagnosing less survivable cancers from unclear symptoms?
I am hopeful that many of the answers to these questions, and others posed by hon. Members, will be found in the forthcoming national cancer plan. The Government have delayed that plan, along with several others, until 2026. We are now in 2026, so can the Minister confirm when the plan will be published? Rumours were swirling that it had been delayed for presentational purposes until World Cancer Day in February, but there are now further rumours that it may be delayed until early March. Can the Minister give us a date?
It is encouraging to see that NHS staff carried out over 3 million cancer checks in 2024, double the number carried out a decade prior. However, as with much of the war against cancer, this is another case of positive progress with more work needing to be done. Much of that work is dependent on the workforce.
The last Government built five new medical schools, including one in Lincolnshire, which are now producing their first medical graduates. However, British graduates need British jobs, and heavy competition from a surging number of international medical graduates is leaving many British graduates without a job. What action is the Minister taking to improve the recruitment of British graduates from British medical schools? Can she confirm when the further delayed 10-year NHS workforce plan will be published? Can she also assure us that that workforce plan, in combination with the long-anticipated cancer plan, will make provision to increase the number of oncologists, radiologists and specialist cancer nurses across the NHS?
As other Members have said, research is absolutely critical if we are to beat cancer, particularly the less survivable cancers, where new technologies for testing and treatment could save lives. Yet the cutting-edge, world-leading research that Britain has to offer does not feel as though it has the Government’s backing. Merck has scrapped its plans for a £1 billion research centre in King’s Cross and has announced plans to make 125 scientists redundant. AstraZeneca has halted a £200 million expansion of its research site in Cambridge and abandoned a £450 million vaccine manufacturing investment in Liverpool. Eli Lilly and Sanofi have both expressed frustration at the undervaluation of innovative medicines in the UK.
When I raised life sciences in a previous debate on cancer, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said that the Government
“want to make this country the best place to do life sciences.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 464WH.]
What support is the Minister providing to businesses in the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries to make that political slogan a reality? What work is she doing with her colleagues in the Departments for Science, Innovation and Technology and for Business and Trade to revive lost life sciences investment and to use British research, which has the world-class facilities needed to innovate and save lives? As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, it is important that we work together as a United Kingdom. What work is the Minister doing with our counterparts in Scotland in particular?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, there is a growing crisis in the hospice sector. Hospice care, provided for those with terminal illnesses such as some cancers, improves symptom control, comfort and support—it adds life to days. What is the Minister doing to press the Chancellor to recognise that her tax and national insurance changes are creating a crisis in the hospice sector, and what is she doing to save hospices from closure in many cases?
In summary, I am concerned that, 18 months in, the absence of definitive Government action for the cancer community has left us without a cancer plan or a workforce plan, while critical research continues to be driven out of this country. I encourage the Minister to provide clarity for cancer sufferers, cancer charities and the cancer workforce, who are doing such sterling work to improve people’s lives, and to get on with innovating lifesaving treatments to improve the tragic survival rates for the less survivable cancers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank you and other Members for persevering despite my slightly tardy arrival, which was due, ironically, to the somewhat unpredictable effects of cancer chemotherapy. I am well, however, and have enjoyed the debate immensely.
Before I begin, I pay tribute to all our NHS staff, our care workers and everyone serving our hospices for their work over the Christmas and new-year period. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate, and for doing his bit to keep up morale at the Royal Berkshire hospital on Christmas eve. I thank all Members for their contributions, and acknowledge all their personal stories and the stories they shared of their constituents. Such a wide range of issues has been raised; I will endeavour to respond to all questions, but given the time pressure, I will follow up in writing to any Members whose questions I do not cover.
I will address each of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham in order. He is right that progress has been uneven across different types of cancer, and that less survivable cancers can be difficult to identify as the symptoms may mirror those of a host of other illnesses. To boost the diagnosis of cancers that are harder to catch at an earlier stage, we have rolled out the non-specific symptom pathways, with 115 NSS services now live. NSS pathways provide a referral route for patients whose symptoms do not fit under a specific cancer pathway. They are making diagnosis smoother and faster for patients whose symptoms are not as clear.
The Government are proud to support the Rare Cancers Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). Baroness Elliott will move its Second Reading in the other place on Friday next week.
As a cancer patient myself, I was proud to stand on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed that pledge just over a year ago, through our plan for change. Although the all cancer survival rate is the best it has ever been, less survivable cancers have just a 16% five-year survival rate, accounting for 67,000 deaths a year. And demand is rising: each day there are around 13,000 urgent referrals for suspected cancer. That is up almost 3,000 a day since 2019.
My officials, including those leading on the national cancer plan, are carefully considering every one of the APPG’s recommendations. Although I cannot go into detail today, I assure Members that rare and less survivable cancers will feature heavily in the new cancer plan. The Government are asking the NHS, charities and all my colleagues in this place to join in a new national effort, spearheaded by the national cancer plan, which we will publish in just a few short weeks, in early February. I can confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that it is being delayed to March. The plan will cover the entirety of the cancer pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care. We want patients to have access to the latest treatments and technology, and to receive the highest quality of care.
We made genomics one of the five big bets in our 10-year plan for health, setting out how we will harness it to create a genomics population health service and support innovation. In July last year, we launched the groundbreaking national inherited cancer predisposition register, so that we can keep track of people with genes that put them at risk. That brings me to a wider point about diagnostics and primary care. We have introduced Jess’s rule, named after Jess Brady, to prompt GPs to investigate further when a patient presents with the same symptoms or concerns more than twice. We have also boosted community diagnostic centres and invested an extra £889 million in general practice. We are committed to ensuring that GPs have the right training and systems to identify cancer symptoms, and we will continue to support the use of clinical decision support tools.
On research and innovation, the Department of Health and Social Care invests over £1.6 billion a year in research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. At over £141 million in the last financial year, cancer research is a major area of NIHR spending. Just last month, the NIHR launched a pioneering new £13.7 million brain tumour research consortium to accelerate research into new treatments.
On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), I understand that the NIHR chief executive officer, Professor Lucy Chappell, has recently written to her, and I will follow up in writing to respond to my hon. Friend’s question and to explain the process of submitting a bid to the NIHR in detail.
In 2024, the NIHR and the Office for Life Sciences announced nearly £11 million to support the further testing of innovations to help to increase the early detection and diagnosis of cancer. That includes funding for research into the new breath test for multiple gastrointestinal cancers and to look at how we can roll it out in primary care.
People watching at home might be thinking, “Well, what happens with all this research?” So let me briefly give a real-world example of implementation: the Cytosponge is a simple test that can identify conditions that are a precursor to oesophageal cancer. The NIHR, alongside Cancer Research UK, funded research into the development of this “sponge on a string”. This year will see a new NHS pilot of its use in high street pharmacies, supporting the shift in the delivery of care from hospitals to community as part of our 10-year health plan.
The Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework, with publication planned for spring this year. The framework will align with the ambitions of the 10-year health plan, which prioritises shifting care out of hospitals and into community settings to ensure personalised, compassionate support for individuals of all ages and their families.
The Government were elected on a manifesto to tackle the biggest killers, including cancer. I am proud to stand here today, after 18 months, and say that we can see some green shoots of recovery across the health service, with 135,000 more cancer diagnoses within the 28-day target. That is partly driven by over 100 community diagnostic centres opening at evenings and on weekends, and new surgical hubs to treat people faster.
With the publication of our national cancer plan, 2026 could be a decisive year for cancer care. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Wokingham, the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and all other Members to make sure that we keep our momentum into the new year and bring about real change.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister very much for her interesting response. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, many of whom spoke very personally about their own experiences. From time to time, that can be quite a hard thing to do, so I thank everybody for doing so. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke very movingly.
I hope the Minister has taken note of all the things that have come out of the debate. There is a need for better diagnosis and for new and more drug trials; there is a need to share information among organisations and across borders; there is a need for better screening of cancer; there is a need for big improvements in the workforce; there is a need for better equipment and new technologies; and there is a need to embrace innovation.
I was pleased to hear that the national cancer plan is still probably going to be announced sometime in February—maybe 4 February—and that it has not been delayed. Everybody is looking forward to seeing that plan. Not just those of us who have come to this debate, but many MPs who have not been able to attend, and millions of our constituents, will be looking to see what is in the national cancer plan. We really hope it covers all the things we have been asking for to date—all the things that the APPGs have been asking for and that individual Members have had meetings with the Minister and others about. All I can say on behalf of the people who have an interest in cancer is that we really hope the Government have been listening, and that it is a cancer plan that everybody in the House is able to get behind—one that will improve diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for people in this country suffering with the most awful diseases. I thank everyone very much for attending the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered less survivable cancers.