Westminster Hall

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 9 July 2026

[Clive Betts in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

Conflicts: Impact on Older People

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts; thank you for chairing this debate for us. I have been asking for a debate on this subject for some time. The subject is close to my heart, and not merely as a matter of policy—it is a matter of conscience, human dignity and our shared responsibility for the most vulnerable in our world. I thank hon. Members for attending. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is always very jovial and friendly and tries to give the answers that we hope for.

I want to start by referring to a constituent named Margaret. She is 83 years old and lives in the Ards peninsula, where I live in my constituency of Strangford. She still keeps a photograph on her mantelpiece of the street where she grew up, which was not in the Ards peninsula. It was in Belfast on a street that no longer exists because it was destroyed—a casualty of the troubles that we had in Northern Ireland. Margaret speaks about the cold, the fear, and the long, painful shadow of conflict. She speaks from experience because it is her story. As an 83-year-old, she can remember it very well.

Across Northern Ireland are thousands upon thousands of older people who carry with them a lived memory of trauma. My family lives with the trauma of the death of my cousin Kenneth; my aunt, uncle and family were never the same. Across Northern Ireland, many thousands of families are affected by the troubles. As the title of the debate states, this is about the impact of conflicts on older people. I will refer to conflicts across the world, but the Northern Ireland one is the one that we can draw experience from and illustrate.

That experience, alongside my role in addressing health policy for the Democratic Unionist Party, means I understand viscerally what conflict does to older people—maybe because I am older now myself. I am more conscious of those who are just ahead of me, which makes me very aware of their vulnerability. I think of my mother who is 94—95 next Tuesday, if God spares her. Again, I think of older people and what they have lived through.

A wound does not simply wound the body, although it does that profoundly and permanently. It fractures community and destroys the very networks of care and support on which older people depend. It strips away the intrinsic dignity that every human being deserves, regardless of age, faith and nationality. My own community of the veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Prison Service and their families fully understand the lasting impact of trauma.

Apologies—I should have thanked the Backbench Business Committee at the beginning for allowing this debate.

The global picture is incredibly worrying. The scale of the crisis is mammoth. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200 million people aged 60 and over are living in fragile or conflict-affected settings. Let us take a few moments to let that number sink in: 200 million older people are living in fear, without adequate healthcare and shelter, and too often without any recognition that their needs are specific, urgent and distinct from those of younger people in the same crisis zone.

I wanted this debate because I have felt for some time that we look at the wars and see the young people, the deaths and the lack of education and healthcare. But in the middle of that are people of an older generation with incredible problems.

We see that with devastating clarity in Ukraine. Whenever I read the stories about Ukraine, they move me significantly. Who is left in the villages that are destroyed? Who is left among the ruins? Usually it is the older people, living in the basements. I want to focus on them for a few moments. I have stood consistently with the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, as has the House, the Minister and every hon. Member. Ukraine has the highest proportion of older people affected by conflict anywhere in the world; one in four Ukrainians is aged over 60.

In eastern and southern Ukraine, near the frontline, the situation is even more acute: one in three people who need assistance is over 60 years of age. The families fled, of course, to get away from the violence, the attacks and the Russian aggression. Only 5.4% of the Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Europe were over 65 because elderly people have been left behind, either due to their choosing to remain in their homes because it is the only place they have, usually with their pets—their cats or dogs—or because of severe health conditions that make fleeing conflict zones more difficult, even though the Ukrainians always try to give such people the choice to leave.

The situation has left older people facing acute challenges. Shockingly, around 50% of documented civilian deaths in Ukraine have been of people older than 60 years of age. They have faced severe disruptions to their support systems as family members, friends or carers have left. Some 90% of older people in Ukraine are unable to pay for even their basic medical needs to be met. They are probably in the conflict zones and often their medications, or the medical help that they need, cannot get to them.

Some 43% of older people in Ukraine have at least one disability. I know, from my position as health spokesperson for my party, that when someone gets to a certain age, they do not just have one thing wrong with them but half a dozen things. Complex needs are incredibly common among many elderly people. That makes evacuations and displacement even more challenging. There are barriers of mobility, digital exclusion and bureaucratic complexity that become insurmountable for an 80-year-old person who has lost just about everything they ever had, including their family.

I speak as one who has spent considerable time examining the collapse of health systems under the pressure of conflict. I want to underline this point with some force: older people have healthcare needs that are complex, chronic and ongoing. They need orthopaedic care. Many old people will struggle to get about at all; being in a warzone, under attack, makes that even more difficult. They also need cardiac monitoring and management of long-term conditions, such as diabetes—I am a recipient of management for that—and respiratory disease, hypertension and dementia. Those are not luxuries; they are the basic requirements of survival.

When a conflict destroys a hospital, a medical centre or a GP surgery; when it displaces a medical team; or when it cuts off a supply chain of medicines, it is the older people who suffer first and most. Long-term conditions are worsened by food insecurity, income insecurity, and the pressures of displacement and living in conflict situations. There are no shops and only the smallest means of cooking—it may be only a wee Calor gas thing, or even only a wood fire. The waiting lists that I have seen grow to crisis point here in Northern Ireland even in peacetime are as nothing compared with what older people face when the infrastructure of healthcare is obliterated by war.

Let us look at some of the harrowing theatres of war across the world. In Lebanon, older people face compounding risks from the escalation of hostilities, rising displacement, economic collapse and pressure on a weakened health system. A 2025 HelpAge assessment of 670 older women and men across five regions of Lebanon found that they were frequently excluded from assistance and recovery planning because they are at an age, they are probably still in the danger zones and little or no effort is made to help them. Some 61% received no humanitarian aid after the conflict and 39% reported being completely left out of the response, even during active hostilities. Only 12% of those who received aid said that it met their needs. Many have been unwilling or unable to leave their homes despite evacuation orders, while those who have fled found shelters that were poorly equipped for mobility, care and dignity, all three of which are so important.

Lebanon illustrates a wider failure. Aid might be provided, but if it is not designed around older people’s access needs, including their outreach, transport support, continuity of medication, assistive devices, home-based care and mental health support, it will not reach those most at risk. Who is at the back of the queue? It is the elderly.

Sudan is the second place that I will focus on. Today in business questions, Sudan was asked about; there was also a question about South Sudan in the questions about NATO, which the Secretary of State for Defence replied to earlier. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on Sudan—four weeks ago today, I think—in which I highlighted the issues in the country. What is happening there is absolutely tragic.

Since fighting erupted in April 2023, Sudan has seen repeated waves of displacement. Over 20 million people need health assistance and around 1 million of them are older people. Civilians face worsening conflict in the Kordofan region and risk escalating violence, confinement and starvation. UN figures provide an evidential base, showing that older men and women each make up about 4% of the population living in displacement camps, while around 3% live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.

Older people remain one of the least supported groups in Sudan. Human rights monitors report that they are often left out of aid programmes, especially in remote areas. It is a massive task to get aid to remote areas; I understand that. But some consideration must be given to it. At the end of my speech, I will set out some ideas, which I hope the Minister will give me some encouragement about.

Due to limited mobility, many older people struggle to flee explosions or attacks. I am 71. I cannot run a marathon any more; I could probably walk it, but I could not run it. Older people who are on mobility aids cannot walk or run at any speed whatever, so they cannot get away from the destruction coming their way. Older people also face high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress. As we get older—maybe you and I both recognise this particular trait, Mr Betts—things may worry us more than they did when we were younger. I say that in jest, but the fact is that older people sometimes dwell on things longer than they should.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member should not take my views for granted in this sort of debate—he can speak for himself, I am sure.

[Jim Shannon]

I speak for myself, but I think you are not too far off my years, Mr Betts, although I know that I am older than you.

In Sudan, the health sector has been destroyed and medicines are in short supply. Even those with manageable health conditions are at grave risk. In parts of Darfur, dozens of older people are among those who have died of hunger in recent months, after armed groups blocked food deliveries. Who cannot get to the aid centres or food centres, because of their disabilities or their particular needs? Older people.

Why is that allowed to happen? It is because older people are invisible in the data. We often come back to data when it comes to debates—especially health debates, but perhaps debates on anything—because data collection and analysis fail to capture the realities of older people’s lives, with data collection often stopping before people are 60. If someone is over 60, their time in this world, according to those who collect data, is limited.

Where older people’s data is included in data collection, they are often lumped together as a single group—those over 60—but that obscures diversity and hinders effective policy making. Evidence shows that age inclusion specialists can change humanitarian assistance by improving assessments, data collection, training and programme design. To give just one example, the data collection tools used by HelpAge Ethiopia showed that there were six times more older people in one region of Tigray than had been previously thought. The data had not been there before so the number of older people had been unknown.

In Venezuela, age inclusion specialists supported humanitarian actors through adjusted food basket guidance to better meet nutritional needs. They use the data for the betterment of services. Unfortunately, there has been a double earthquake in Venezuela and many people are missing—the country is dealing with some incredible problems.

A 2025 systematic review found that the barriers to age-inclusive healthcare include inaccessible health services, shortage of medication and equipment, limited geriatric expertise, age discrimination, low mobility and dependence on others—more often than not, elderly people do depend on others. Funding reform is desperately needed. A 2025 analysis by HelpAge found that older people are rarely named in humanitarian funding databases. How can we deliver enough aid, medication, food and support to elderly people if we do not know how many there are? In funding databases, only 6.5% of descriptions and 0.1% of project titles mention older people.

I must raise the question—you would expect me to, Mr Betts, because I always do—of freedom of religion or belief. It is intrinsic to this debate in ways that are not always acknowledged. In many conflict zones, such as in Myanmar, Nigeria, Syria and Ethiopia, older people are targeted not merely because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they are the custodians of their communities’ faith and culture. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I share this concern, and I look forward to her contribution.

As custodians, older people hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity. They are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community, and they are targeted because of that. They are driven from their homes because of their faith and denied the right to practice a faith that has sustained them across a lifetime. That is not simply a humanitarian failure; it is a moral outrage. Does the Minister agree that the protection of older people in conflict zones must explicitly include the protection of their right to freedom of religion or belief? I know the Minister’s answer to that, but perhaps we could have it on the record in Hansard.

I do not want to be churlish about the progress that has been made in international humanitarian law. There are frameworks and conventions, as well as the “Sphere Handbook” and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s work on inclusion, but let me be direct in a respectful way. The gap between the frameworks that exist on paper and the reality experienced by an 80-year-old woman sheltering in a basement in Kharkiv or a 75-year-old pastor driven from his church in Kaduna state in Nigeria is vast and unconscionable.

I have a number of questions for the Minister—seven, to be precise. We need to make humanitarian aid age-inclusive by default. Will the Minister commit to requiring UK-funded programmes to explicitly and systemically identify and reach older people, including those living alone, those with disabilities and chronic illness, and those unable to travel to distribution points?

To protect older people’s health, care and wellbeing, will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office prioritise continuity of medication, accessible health services, assistive devices, safe evacuation, accessible shelters, home-based care, if possible, and mental health support in active conflicts? Will the Government support universal social pensions, inclusive cash assistance and shock-responsive systems that enable older people to meet their own priorities with dignity? That will ensure age-inclusive access to cash and social protection.

Will the Department include older women in protection and its responses? Pre-existing patterns of discrimination are exacerbated during conflict, and extreme levels of violence against women and girls are a recurring theme. Older women are particularly at risk due to their age, gender, disability, caring responsibilities, widowhood or financial dependence. The UK international strategic framework on women and girls fails to consider how older women are affected, but there must be a focus on older women in particular. Will the Government ensure that its implementation includes explicit reference to older women’s humanitarian protection and safeguarding, and programmes to tackle gender-based violence through a life course approach? Russian army personnel have carried out horrendous sexual attacks on girls as young as eight and women as old as 80. We need to protect women of all ages.

We must count older people properly. Will the Minister require age, sex and disability to be included in disaggregated data, including specific age cohorts over 60? The age of 60 is where it seems to stop. If someone is over 60, we do not know about them for the purposes of all humanitarian assistance that the UK Government provide or support.

We must recognise older people as rights holders. Will the UK support the creation of a UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise the agency and contributions of older people and to facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building and monitoring, and local decision making?

Last, there must be engagement with devolved Administrations. Will the Minister engage directly with the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where we have hard-won knowledge of what conflict does to older people across generations, so that the lived experience of communities like mine can inform and enrich our international humanitarian policy?

I opened my speech with Margaret, so I will close it with Margaret. She once told me something that I cannot forget—that the worst thing about conflict is not the noise of it but the silence that comes after, when the world moves on and forgets that you are still carrying all that pain, memory and trauma. The older people of Ukraine, Sudan, Lebanon, the Sahel and every conflict zone across the world are still carrying that. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—these great four nations together as one—has both the capacity and the moral duty to ensure that they are not forgotten.

I commend this debate to the House. I thank Members for turning up, and I look forward to their contributions, particularly those of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Minister. I look forward to engagement with the Minister and to ensuring that older people in conflict are not forgotten about. There are ways of doing it better; let us start now.

13:52

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I also wish his mother a very happy birthday for next Tuesday.

In many areas of deep conflict, the population rarely reaches our definition of older people. In Gaza, life expectancy has plummeted from 73 years to just 40.5 years. In Sudan, life expectancy is 66 years, and in Nigeria and Chad, it is 55 years. Compare those numbers with the UK life expectancy of 81.3 years or the life expectancy in Japan of 84.7 years. It is a privilege that our nation is safe, secure and conflict-free. Those figures show that conflict shortens lives by decades through poor access to healthcare and pharmaceuticals; disability, disruption and displacement; prevalence of disease and hastened frailty; and an environment of climate change, floods and famine.

Gender-based violence scars the lives of its survivors. I am so proud that our Foreign Secretary has rightly placed tackling the prevalence of the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war at the heart of her work. Access to healthcare, an issue that I particularly look at in my work in the House, is significantly reduced, with the targeting of health facilities and health professionals now central in many conflicts. We have seen that in Gaza and in Sudan. Health professionals working there run these risks in the work that they do and because they are targeted by weapons. That breaks the rules of just wars, but these wars, of course, are never just.

We have also seen the shrinking capacity of healthcare against the increased demand, whether from the wounds of war or the poor mental health sustained from the sharp rise of sexual violence against women. As a result, the ability to access healthcare is reduced, and that, of course, will always impact older people the most. Often in war, we look at the wounds and we understand why, but it is the chronic conditions—the cancers, the diabetes and other illnesses—that often get forgotten; it is the drugs not getting through, the treatments not available, the clinicians simply diverted to acute care. Our hearts beat when we know that a child has been rescued or a life has been saved, but although the life of an older person is of equal value, often the resources are not there to save or sustain that life.

As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is often the elderly who stay behind in conflict zones because they cannot move—they cannot be displaced, and they stay in those areas. We have seen that in Ukraine and in many other areas. Our research shows that moving an elderly person has other impacts; it can cause much confusion and have a real impact on mental wellbeing. We need to take on board why so many older people die in conflict; it is because they are in the direct firing line, or because the facilities and infrastructure that keep them going are removed.

This is not just about healthcare. It is about social care and the social infrastructure when family is no longer available to provide support. State provision can be disrupted, and pensions no longer available. Food supplies are diverted into emergency and humanitarian aid. It is so important that we put older people at the front of all agendas. I say that as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people; I take this matter very seriously.

Now, with severe cuts to international aid, a humanitarian response is more challenging. I urge the Government to return to 0.7% as a matter of urgency and to provide leadership once again, to ensure that we can provide aid. Not everyone will be able to receive that, but we should provide it to as many people as possible. Older lives matter, too.

When infrastructure breaks down, resilience plummets and that is particularly stark among older people. The Government must be mindful of that when appraising their priorities. Without financial resilience, even the basics become barriers, especially for women in conflict zones. Aid must ensure provision of food, care, medicines and support. It needs to be a lifeline.

This is not just about the physical impact of destitution and the health consequences. The psychological trauma must be recognised, too. Elders play such a pivotal role in communities and families. If their resilience is broken, so is that of their societies. In many societies to this day, women are at particular risk of violence and abuse, including sexual violence. It has been a taboo subject, not least among the older generation, yet it is so traumatic. Last Ukraine day, an event was held in my constituency where I heard from a Ukrainian woman and saw a film about the sexual violence being perpetrated against women in Ukraine, and the horrors and the scars that it has left them with. They did not speak, because of the shame it brought them and the trauma that they were going through, but, when they started to share their stories, it brought healing between them.

Without the proper support and psychological care wrapped around individuals, that healing does not come. That is why I am so proud that our Foreign Secretary has recognised that and has put resources into it, particularly in the Sudan region. We need to make sure that women there access the support.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important speech, particularly on women in Ukraine who have suffered sexual violence during war. Does she agree that having proper support for those women, and an ability to record what they have experienced, is important, not just to support them, but to make sure that when the war in Ukraine ends, justice, as much as it can be done, is done for those people?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, as it is so important to make a catalogue of war crimes. Whether they are committed against the elderly, or they consist of any other form of violence, including sexual violence, it is crucial that we keep good records so that we can hold perpetrators to account when the opportunity arises.

We know that if older people do not get the right nutrition, it has a massive impact on their ability to function. They can have greater episodes of confusion, making life much more challenging; they can become frailer; and they can rapidly lose their mobility, meaning that they have more complex needs. Good distribution of humanitarian aid is vital for the vulnerable, and we must always ensure that we factor in access to targeted support. It is not only about ensuring that people have the ability to reach that food; it must also be prepared for them in the right way.

We have been talking about some of the challenges that we have seen in Sudan as of late. It is a horrendous and complex war, so I am glad that it was discussed at the NATO summit recently and remains at the forefront of our Government’s mind. It is very much a forgotten war in so many respects. Evidence has also shown that the elderly in Sudan have been in the direct line of violence. It is important that we do not forget that either.

Older people—not least women—play a crucial role in the home and in the community, which often ripples out far beyond. Often, they are the ones who build the bridges, build the civil society, create the pathways to peace and organise communities at their most challenged. It is often the older women who can use their wisdom to bring co-ordination and build a way to the future. Indeed, I have been inspired by many older women leaders who have led the charge out of conflict, into a more resilient future.

However, we must also recognise that there are significant challenges. First, what are the Government doing to provide better protections for older people and their rights? We in the all-party parliamentary group undertook an inquiry into the human rights of older people, which looked at the frameworks and mechanisms that we can deploy to enhance and protect those rights, and to ensure that people can uphold them.

The work of the UN convention on the rights of older people has been inspiring, and it very much follows the lines along which other rights have been established, including the rights of the child or disabled people, to ensure that the protected characteristic of older people is upheld. Of course, it falls on the Foreign Office to advance that work and ensure that the UK plays a full role. We must bring our experience into that space so that older people’s identity can be seen, and so that their needs, in particular, can be supported. I ask the minister: what exactly are we doing to lead that work? Will the UK adopt the UN convention, once it has been established, to ensure that women, men and older people across the piece have their value recognised and their rights upheld?

Having a rights-based framework will move the agenda; it will enable us to focus on that protected characteristic—for example, age-inclusive specialists can help to reprioritise the humanitarian response, particularly in health or care. We must also ensure that we have good data to accompany that work, so that we know exactly how to focus our humanitarian response. Of course, when it comes to healthcare insurance, we can then ensure that pharmaceuticals and equipment are available in conflict areas to meet the needs of the demographic that we are debating today. When only 0.1% of humanitarian funding databases mention older people, we know we have a problem.

Can the Minister assure me that the Foreign Office will write older people into all its work, and will spread that good practice to agencies and other nations? Will the Government ensure that their humanitarian response is always age-inclusive, with an understanding of the risks that older people face when social infrastructure is destroyed by conflict? Will they also ensure that distribution is targeted to reach elderly people who have both chronic and acute health needs, wherever that focus is required?

Will the Government promote opportunities for social protections, such as social security and pensions, among older people in conflict zones to ensure that they can access the resources that they need? Of course, it is important in many countries, as it is in this one, that people can use more traditional ways to access those services. Will the Government ensure that they crunch the numbers for conflict areas and use the data to design humanitarian responses, recognising the prevalence of older people and the focus that they need?

Finally, I again make the point that the pivotal game changer for the issue is to have a UN convention on the rights of older people. That is about giving agency to older people in conflict zones, to better facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building, monitoring and decision taking. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and to contributions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I trust that we can rebuild our humanitarian response with good data, programmes and rights to support older people in conflict zones.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench spokespeople. They are entitled to speak for at least 10 minutes each, but given that we are not particularly time-constrained, I will leave it with them to make a judgment on that.

14:07

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate to shine a light on an important but often overlooked issue. It is strange that many of the voices who mourn Britain’s declining influence are the first to say that we should spend nothing on issues beyond our own shores, and that the 0.7% commitment to development spending was a national indulgence that we can no longer afford. However, our influence never relied on hard power alone. Our leverage in the world comes from working with others and leading by example.

That is what internationalism means, and that is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the commitment to international aid is not merely sentimental, but fundamental and strategic. It rests on the simple principle of equality: that we help those who need help most. I will not create a league table of suffering, but some groups bear a heavier burden in humanitarian crises. Older people, especially those who are disabled, are almost always among the most affected. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, 75% of those who died were over 60, despite older people making up only 16% of the local population. When the Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami struck in 2011, 56% of those who lost their lives were aged 65 or over.

The world today is less stable than it has been in a generation. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found that since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, older people have accounted for almost half of civilian deaths, where age could be verified. Older people, especially older women, remain at disproportionate risk, particularly in frontline areas.

Given that we know all that, it is extraordinary that the FCDO confirmed cuts to precisely the funds that support the most vulnerable groups in humanitarian responses. The International Development Committee found that FCDO equality impact assessments expect ODA reductions to programmes with a strong focus on equalities to be severe. The Committee also heard that work on disability and inclusion in South Sudan specifically will cease altogether, which will have a direct impact on elderly people.

UN figures show that more than 46% of people aged 60 or over live with a disability, and more than 250 million older people worldwide experience moderate to severe disability. In the UK, the House of Commons Library’s analysis shows that disability prevalence rises from 23% among working-age adults in the UK to 45% among adults over the state pension age, and 58% among those aged 80 and over.

Therefore, when disability inclusion funding is cut in a humanitarian response, older people will be hit twice over. It is not an unfortunate side effect; it is a foreseeable and measurable consequence. I want to press the Government on the false choice they keep presenting between defence and development, particularly in the context of Ukraine. Official development assistance budgets are part of defending Ukraine. For example, they partly fund accessible bomb shelters and healthcare adaptions for people with mobility needs or age-related conditions. If we are serious about supporting Ukraine, are the lives of its oldest citizens not part of that commitment?

Liberal Democrats reject the idea that we must choose. We have set out how defence spending can rise to 2.5% of GDP and beyond, through mechanisms such as defence bonds and a higher digital services tax on the largest technology firms—that is without hollowing out our aid budget. We advocate for the immediate restoration of ODA to 0.5% of gross national income, with a clear roadmap back to 0.7%.

The American example in this is not one to follow. USAID has been gutted by an Administration that treats development spending as something somehow unpatriotic. Within the older age group, the situation of women reveals a heightened danger. Amnesty International’s submission to the UN independent expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons documents this starkly. In north-east Nigeria, older women displaced by Boko Haram faced particularly severe discrimination and invisibility. They were often unsuccessful when they tried to petition simply to be added to food distribution lists. In Ukraine, women’s pensions are on average 30% lower than men’s, which is a consequence of shorter careers and interrupted employment caused by caregiving responsibilities. Older women also experience higher rates of disabling conditions than men of the same age, such as arthritis, osteoporosis and frailty.

As a result, older women are disproportionately exposed to poverty when displaced. The social role played by women as caregivers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), means that if they suffer, the impact is felt by the whole extended family. If they are left without income, accessible health care or a place in the food queue, the people who depend on their care feel it also. If the Government want to talk about return on investment in their development spending, this is exactly where that return is the greatest. Supporting older women is not a niche ask; it is a multiplier for entire households and communities.

I am speaking for the Liberal Democrats, but of course it is not just us. Amnesty International has set out practical and deliverable recommendations. We must disaggregate humanitarian data by age, gender and disability, so that we can see who is being missed out. We must ensure that older people are not systematically excluded from livelihood and cash assistance programmes on the discriminatory assumption that they cannot work. The humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people with disabilities, developed by the sector’s own age and disability inclusion consortium, already exist and are freely available. Will the Minister confirm whether the FCDO is using them, and if it is not, why not?

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that this Government do not need new evidence to act; they need to start listening to the evidence that they already have. They need to listen to their own equality impact assessments rather than commissioning them and then quietly setting them aside, as has happened all too often in previous rounds of cuts. They need to make use of the evidence-based inclusion standards that the humanitarian sector has already built, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel—or, indeed, ignoring them altogether. They also need to restore ODA, first to 0.5% of GNI, but with a published roadmap back to 0.7%, so that the targeted programmes reaching older people, and older women in particular, are not the first thing to be sacrificed when budgets tighten. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

14:14

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate—the last debate of his that I contributed to was a few weeks ago on stoma care, when we managed to get some rather interesting entries into Hansard on the names that people give to their stomas, some of them quite inappropriate.

An interesting point from that debate, which connects through to this issue, is the way conditions affect older people in different ways. Translating the very specific care needs that older people with stomas have, for example, into the context of a war zone or refugee camp gives an example of how that suffering would be greatened. As always, through referencing his constituent Margaret, the hon. Member brings to life the fact that, while we often talk in broad terms about statistics and facts in these debates, each of those represents a person with their own story to tell and their own suffering.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and for her long-standing commitment. I have been in a number of debates where she has spoken, and while I have a different view from her on aid spending and I support the Government’s position, I recognise that she has long-standing and very sincerely held views on this subject. Debates such as this are where those views can be exchanged, and she has remained consistent in her views and advocated for them over time.

I shall break the jolly consensus just to respond to one little point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), brought forward the idea that we can use defence bonds as a magic answer for defence spending, and that that would avoid having to make any cuts whatsoever to the aid budget and get us back up to 0.7% without worrying. Borrowing costs are at their highest levels in decades, and the bond market is not a great place at the moment—and bonds still have to be paid back. We have not yet seen any understanding from the Liberal Democrats about how those bonds would be paid back, and how those ever-increasing borrowing costs would be factored in. The solution is not as simple as taking out a few extra bonds and then all will be fine with the international aid budget.

[John Milne]

There is no easy fix, that is for sure, but the loans are not coming from the bond markets; they are coming from British people. We are not imposing on or demanding on the bond market. That is the difference. Such bonds have been used successfully in the past.

[Mr Snowden]

I hold Government bonds myself—as I am sure many people do—so I should probably declare an interest. As we know, the interest rate that all bonds are generally driven by is the headline interest rate and the bond markets overall. Otherwise, the Government would just borrow from the public every single time. It is not that simple, and there are knock-on effects of doing that. There is a reason why premium bonds are capped —because they are moving people’s money out of taxable savings into non-taxable savings, which hits the Treasury somewhere else. The issue is not as straightforward as it is presented.

To get to the actual subject, it is evident that we are currently living in a more dangerous world than at any time in our recent past. Humanitarian crises in Africa are exacerbated by the actions of Governments; there is war in the middle east, with the terrorist regime in Tehran hellbent on causing chaos and instability; and Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine signalled the end of the post-war peace dividend and brought the realities of war to Europe once again.

Evidence shows that conflict disproportionately affects older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford has highlighted. Almost half the civilian deaths in the conflict in Ukraine are persons older than 60, despite that demographic constituting about one quarter of the population. Older people are more likely to remain in conflict zones because they have strong ties to their homes, lands and territories, or because they are physically more limited. With that in mind, we must seek to ensure that our overseas aid is targeted at those who need it most, with budgets properly scrutinised and value for money sought in every penny spent.

Although many will want to discuss the size of the budget, it is equally important that we consider reforming the existing budget and improving the way it is spent. How can we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—for our national security, prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients abroad? With approximately 1.9 million pensioners living in the UK in relative poverty, we owe it to them to ensure that the money we send abroad is money well spent. That is why, throughout this debate, we must ask ourselves the best way to deliver for the needs of older people. We also must deliver a message to older people, both at home and in conflict areas overseas, that we see them, we hear them and we are here for them when needed.

We have numerous reminders of older people’s vulnerabilities to conflict over recent years. In 2020, elderly Armenians who stayed in Nagorno-Karabakh were subject to summary executions. Indeed, older people made up more than half of all Armenian civilian deaths. We saw that trend again in Myanmar: older Rohingya who stayed in the face of advances were killed and tortured, and some people indicate that the highest rates of Rohingya deaths are among people aged 50 and over.

It is no surprise, though it is never any less shocking, to see the suffering that Putin’s illegal invasion has caused to older Ukrainians. As I said, Ukrainians over 60 make up only 25% of their country’s population, yet they account for nearly half of civilian deaths and more than a third of injuries in frontline communities. The UN refugee agency polled older Ukrainians who remained in or near Russian-occupied areas last year and found that many stayed because they lacked an alternative. Indeed, 20% of respondents said that they would not evacuate because they felt helpless and did not know where to get the help they needed. Many felt that they would have nothing left if they evacuated.

There is an opportunity to think outside the box on how we assist older people in conflict areas. For example, we know that many older people’s finances prevent them from evacuating. Ukraine and Poland have innovated and agreed a mechanism to allow refugees access to their pensions. Is the Minister discussing similar proposals with counterparts in war-torn countries elsewhere in the world where that could possibly be replicated?

Many older people cited poor health as reasons for not evacuating their homes. After all, older displaced Ukrainians are more likely to report difficulties in accessing healthcare. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is working with our humanitarian partners to make it clear to older people who want to evacuate how they can access that help. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that internally displaced peoples are able to return home when appropriate, rather than being forced to seek refuge in another country?

Displaced older people in Sudan report difficulties in accessing information on essential services. Many older Syrians remained in war-torn areas in order to continue accessing healthcare. Some older Syrians are now returning to those same war-torn areas in search of more affordable and accessible healthcare. With that in mind, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that best practice on healthcare is shared?

Of course, evacuating older people from conflict zones is only the first step. Those people can be vulnerable at every stage. Many older people are not mobile enough to reach official displacement camps. Some stop at unofficial locations, which are often overcrowded and have inadequate access to essentials. Some older people become separated from their families while evacuating, and they are vulnerable, particularly those with dementia, to becoming lost in institutional systems. Some evacuated older people struggle to register their presence at displacement camps. They often lack official documents, and registration points can be inaccessible. As a result, they may miss out on aid distribution and medical care.

The international landscape is, sadly, defined by conflict and instability. Older people in conflict-threatened zones continue to be vulnerable. Problems accessing help, healthcare and finances persist. The Government have an opportunity to support older people affected by conflict. That will involve working with our partners to find new solutions and address the specific needs that older people have, as part of a wider programme of meaningful reform.

I hope the Minister will explain how his Department is meeting the realities of our most dangerous world. I look forward to his response to my questions and the very detailed requests—as we would expect—from the hon. Member for Strangford.

14:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. As if the House needed any more confirmation that he comes from good stock, I wish his mother a very happy birthday for next week. I think anyone reaching their 90s is a great achievement, and it is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman’s mum will be reaching that great milestone in age.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution. Having worked with her over many years, I know how much she cares about these issues. She has always been steadfast and utterly consistent in her views about supporting older people, not just in the UK, but internationally.

As the Minister with responsibility for multilateral affairs, I often speak in international fora about peace building and conflict resolution, and I often talk about Northern Ireland. It is sometimes forgotten that we have had conflict on our own shores that lasted for decades. Much the peace building that followed was from women, and from older people who lived through the entire period of the troubles. We forget that we have much to celebrate about the work of the peace process in Northern Ireland; but we must also recognise the impact that the conflict has had and still has on many constituents and people across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to Margaret, the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am sure that must have been a fascinating conversation for him as her local MP.

The Foreign Secretary has been clear that tackling humanitarian need and reducing the violence caused by conflict and atrocities is a key priority for the Foreign Office. We are committed to delivering the vision for a reformed humanitarian system, set out by the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to build a system that is focused on the most vulnerable and prioritises the views of communities affected by crisis. The needs of older people must be central to that work.

When we think about the human cost of war, we often think first of children separated from their families, women and girls facing violence, or communities forced from their homes—and while we should continue to do so, we should also recognise that older people are among those hardest hit by conflict, yet they remain largely invisible. At the same time, older people are not one homogeneous group. Age alone does not make someone vulnerable. Many continue to lead, care for others and support their communities, even in the most difficult of circumstances. That is why we must take three steps to address the humanitarian impact of conflict on older people.

First, we must recognise that older people can be disproportionately affected by conflict. Today, more than 100 armed conflicts are taking place around the world, from Sudan and Ukraine to Myanmar and Gaza. The experiences of older women and men are too often missing from discussions, data and humanitarian planning. Many are unable to flee when violence erupts. Older people are also often hardest hit in a crisis. Many depend on regular medicines and healthcare, as has been mentioned, so disruptions can quickly become life-threatening.

Poor health, disability, limited mobility or caring responsibilities can leave older people trapped in conflict zones long after others have escaped. Others become separated from family members and the support networks on which they rely. Humanitarian assistance is frequently designed without adequately considering those specific needs, which creates barriers to getting food, water and basic services.

Older people also face greater risk of neglect, abuse and exclusion, with older women in particular often facing additional and intersecting challenges linked to age, disability and gender. That is why the UK consistently presses all parties to conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and allow rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access to all those in need, including older people. But that alone is not enough, as has been mentioned by Members across the House today.

We must work proactively to understand and integrate the needs and perspectives of older people into humanitarian responses. For many years, humanitarian actors have highlighted the lack of systematic data on the needs and experiences of older people during crises. Without data, needs are often overlooked; without visibility, resources are not allocated; and without representation, policies and programmes risk being developed without the participation of those affected.

That is why the UK is taking practical action through our humanitarian programmes and partnerships in order to build the evidence base to inform effective responses. Members from across the House have today raised this point about data, and I hope to provide an answer on that particular concern. We work with UN agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and other non-governmental organisations to support humanitarian responses that take account of age, disability and other barriers people may face.

We also encourage partners to collect and use age as aggregated data, so that assistance is informed by evidence and reaches those who might otherwise be invisible in humanitarian responses. This is not simply a technical point. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, it helps to determine whether food distribution points are accessible, whether healthcare reaches those with chronic conditions, whether shelters are sustainable, and whether protection services are identifying those most at risk. In Gaza, for example, the UK has funded assistive products for people injured in conflicts. Each kit can provide practical, lifechanging support for hundreds of people. For an older person, it can be the difference between being left behind and reaching safety, medical care and essential services.

We cannot just look through the lens of vulnerability and must recognise older people across the world as leaders, caregivers and contributors to community resilience. Many continue to care for grandchildren, support neighbours, maintain community networks and help others to navigate crises. Humanitarian and conflict responses are more effective when older persons are involved in decisions that affect their life and the lives of those in their broader community. Their knowledge and networks can make responses more effective, more trusted and more sustainable.

Let me try to answer some of the more specific points that have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central was right to raise Sudan; it is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our age. The Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister when he was the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Cameron of the other place have spent the last four years leading the work internationally—multilaterally and bilaterally—to ensure that Sudan remains high on the agenda.

In February of this year, when the UK Government chaired the Security Council, the Foreign Secretary chaired a special session focusing purely on Sudan. The Foreign Secretary gave a statement on the Floor of the House today updating us on the NATO summit, the issues around Sudan and the fact that the UK is leading the conversation on trying to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We always need to do more to highlight and broadcast what is taking place in Sudan, because it is truly important to find a resolution that brings about a ceasefire and takes us back to peaceful stability.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a particular point around older women being overlooked in conflict, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about women in relation to the atrocity of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I reassure the House that we support women-led and women’s rights projects and organisations, recognising that they are often the most trusted actors in helping to identify the victims of sexual violence and the risks specifically faced by older women, including widows, carers, women with disabilities and women separated from family support.

As the special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as well as in my role as Minister, I have a wider women, peace and security commitment that focuses on not only younger women and girls but older women as well, and making sure that there is support for survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made the point about evidence gathering, justice and retribution for these heinous crimes of sexual violence in conflict. We work as a UK Government to ensure that evidence is gathered and that, in the near future, when we hopefully have peace in Ukraine, Sudan and other conflicts, there is accountability for people who have committed acts of sexual violence in the name of conflict.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response so far. I mentioned those of an older generation who are the custodians of the community’s faith and culture. They are the ones who hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity; they are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community. Can the Minister give us some reassurance in relation to those older women and men who are targeted because of their religious belief—some of them sexually as well? Will the Government help them to retain and protect their religious beliefs?

[Chris Elmore]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, he knows that I have a personal commitment to working with our freedom of religion or belief envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). He never shies away from the particular point the hon. Gentleman is raising and nor will I as Minister.

On the wider point that the hon. Gentleman raises about supporting and working with older people on peacebuilding and resolution, which my hon Friend the Member for York Central also raised, I reassure him and the House that the Department has an instinctive view that locally led, inclusive peacebuilding needs to include elders—the older women and men who understand many of the challenges in the community. We need that support because they bring trust and knowledge. They are leaders in their communities, whether they are of any faith or none. It is extremely important that older people are part of that peacebuilding resolution. In many cases, where older people are engaged in peacebuilding, the process actually lasts longer. That is particularly true of women; when women take part in peacebuilding, there is much evidence to show that many years of peace follow. It is extremely important to the Government that that work continues.

A number of Members mentioned Ukraine, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I reassure the House that the budgets for overseas development and for additional support through the 100-year partnership have been protected, specifically for Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. I reiterate that point because it is extremely important. The House will know that events in Ukraine disproportionately affect older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. There is some concerning data that shows disproportionate suffering among civilian casualties, with older people accounting for more than 45% of civilian deaths. Those are real people, not just statistics, and they show the incredible impact that conflict has on older people across Ukraine.

We do specific pieces of work to support older people. A number of colleagues raised the issue of assistance and pensions; let me to try to offer some clarity on that. Through the UK Government’s partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF, we are supporting the Government of Ukraine in relation to strengthening national social protection systems. We are also trying to make sure that there is more specific support for winter cash assistance and that older people have more support during power outages. The work that the Government do is focused in many of the areas where there is an adverse impact on older people.

There has been much conversation about data. I reassure the House that FCDO partners should use disaggregated data, including on sex, age and disability, to understand who is being reached and, crucially, who is missing out on support. I wanted to put that on the record because part of the reason for that expectation is that when considering age-related barriers, we are talking about the risks linked to disability, or based on gender, poverty, health, isolation, displacement and other forms of marginalisation. That expectation is very much set out by the Department.

In my time as a Minister, I have never been given a list of questions in advance by the Member leading the debate. I have tried to answer each of them and not miss anything. I have a couple of points to make. One is about the violence against women and girls response. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that older women are a part of that work, as I said earlier in my speech. To make that very clear point, it is not about forgetting women who are victims of sexual violence; it is about trying to be as inclusive as we can to offer support to victims in recovery, and to try to prevent sexual violence in conflict.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central and the hon. Member for Strangford raised the UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise older people and their legacies. I can confirm, as I have done in response to parliamentary questions and to various colleagues who have written to me during my time in this role, that we are supportive of a UN convention on older persons. There are many existing support mechanisms for older people in the UN multilateral system, but that does not mean that some form of convention should not come through. The negotiations are ongoing, but when it happens, although I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee in the sense of who the Minister will be, there is genuine support across HMG for the work of that resolution in supporting older people.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful because this is such a fundamental issue that I have focused on for some time. Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to expedite the process, and what kind of timescale are we looking at to see that convention in place?

[Chris Elmore]

On the timescale, I should warn my hon. Friend that the process has been a matter of debate for some years. She probably knows far more about it than I do, so I cannot stand here and say it will be done by x date. What I can say is that we are a part of those conversations. Our contribution is to try to make sure that as the work that might lead to a convention on older people is brought together, we are not stepping away from it. We are a part of the work that is ongoing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful, not least because of the work done in Wales around the rights of older people and having the commission there. Will the Minister ensure that our Government take a real leadership role in moving that work forward and ensuring that other nations contribute and participate, and that we get the rights established? Ultimately, we know that it could be really transformative for establishing a rights-based system for older people across the globe.

[Chris Elmore]

To reassure my hon. Friend, I frequently meet other Ministers in the UN space in New York, and also in Geneva at the Human Rights Council, where the issues are discussed, and I think there is a willingness for the process to succeed. That work is very much part of the conversation and we are there in the room for much of it. I give her that reassurance.

As the global population ages and as conflicts and humanitarian crises continue around the world, the number of older people affected is likely to increase. That is why the UK is working with humanitarian partners to ensure that older people are not overlooked. At the heart of the debate is a simple principle: no person should become invisible because of their age, and no society should overlook the dignity, rights and contributions of those who have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities. The United Kingdom will continue to champion the protection, inclusion and participation of older people in humanitarian action around the world.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon, who has a couple of minutes to wind up.

14:43

[Jim Shannon]

I thank everyone for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend—she is my friend—the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution and the work she does on the APPG for ageing and older people. She does a lot—only in these debates do we realise just how much she does—so I thank her for that. She referred to how conflict shortens lives. She also referred to frailty, gender-based violence and the complex needs that people have. Older people are the ones who usually lose out in conflict. She referred to resilience, food, care and support and also to the sexual violence in Ukraine, and indeed across the world. She mentioned how better distribution of international aid is vital. I thank her for outlining very clearly the way forward and for all that she does.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) referred in an intervention to the need to have data to focus on the issue so that we can know just how many people are suffering. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for his contribution. We do need to look at international aid; the question of where that money comes from cannot be ignored. He referred to how older people suffer more in a humanitarian crisis, and challenged the Government to address the issue of international aid. He also referred to how women and girls suffer disproportionately in many of these crises. Data is needed.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), made an incredible contribution, as he always does. He reminded us of Armenia. Sometimes we forget about places in the world and it is good to remember because it keeps our minds focused on the subject of this debate. Older people were murdered because they were still there, and because they were surplus to the enemy’s requirements. He also referred to the executions in Myanmar; we need to remember that as well. Across the world, in many places, those over 60 are tortured and then murdered. He also mentioned the pension issue in Poland for people from Ukraine. To be fair to the Minister, he gave a decent response in relation to it. The shadow Minister also referred to displaced people in Sudan and Syria who cannot access healthcare.

I thank the Minister for his contribution, as always. I never doubted—I say this very respectfully and sincerely—that the Minister would respond to us and give us encouragement. I always give the Minister my points in advance. That is the way I do things, because I would rather have a decent response and not be attacking anybody. That is just me—that is the way I am. I thank him very much for responding on the pension issue and giving us some encouragement around how that will work.

The Minister also referred to not forgetting about any victims, which is really important, and to making sure that we get the data and the willingness to succeed. I noted some of his phrases. He referred to the lack of data and how the Government are responding to ensure that they can collect such data better. He also noted how older people are adversely affected in conflict and the focus on medical aid, and on retention of support for disabilities and trauma. It worries me greatly when I hear that enemies, strong men—they are monsters—use their strength to abuse women and girls. The Minister has grasped that.

The Minister also referred to peacebuilding and revitalisation in Northern Ireland—I know he is acknowledging Northern Ireland; that is not lost on me—and that was primarily driven by women. Very often that is the case. Their persuasion of men, although not always to the fore, is recognised very much by the Minister. I thank him for all his answers to the questions, his commitment and the commitment of the special envoy, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who does a grand job. I thank you, Mr Betts, for your chairship. I thank the civil servants who organised the debate, and the Department civil servants, who keep the Minister right—well done to them. I thank everyone for their contributions. They are much appreciated. Today we start something, and look to help those older people who are often forgotten, though today in this Chamber they were not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.

14:49

Sitting suspended.

Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

15:00

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We have quite a lot of members of the public in the Gallery; it is lovely to have you. You have been through the experiences and are affected by the topic of the debate. However, as is convention, I encourage Members to speak into the Chamber and through me as Chair and not turn round to the Gallery. That is not to be impolite; it is a convention of this Chamber, so please understand that.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. MPs from across the House are here today to mark the anniversary of the death of my constituent Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time at very short notice in the parliamentary schedule for this debate. Unfortunately, that short notice has prevented many MPs who would have liked to have spoken today from joining us. Unfortunately, that was a necessity.

Today is a sad moment because Susan is no longer with us, but it is also a time to celebrate what she has achieved. Susan was a remarkable woman. She was warm but incredibly stoic. At no time was that clearer than on her last trip to Parliament in the summer of last year, oxygen tank in tow. Determined but evidently suffering, Susan stood for 22 minutes in a silent vigil outside No. 10 Downing Street with fellow campaigners and lobular ladies around her. We all understood that Susan was in her last days or weeks, so to watch her husband, campaigners and fellow lobular ladies rallying around her, literally supporting her, was a sight to behold.

In her haste to deliver her petition to No. 10 that day, Susan had forgotten her ID. She was distraught. All that effort would be wasted, as the rules were clear: no ID, no entry. But that, of course, was not Susan’s way. Susan, with our support, blagged her way past security. Susan was never one to take no for an answer. Not long after, Susan died—just days after her meeting with the then Health Secretary.

It might seem odd to say, given that I met Susan when she was already very ill with the lobular cancer that she was campaigning to prevent, but I feel that I met her in her prime. It was immediately clear to me that this was a person with an unparalleled commitment to her cause. Despite her illness, Susan never looked for the sympathy vote. She was always calm and matter of fact. She led by example. It is a reminder that her cause, while not yet complete, is a worthy one, and with a champion to match.

Susan’s first campaign was in fact not lobular breast cancer; it was aviation safety. She flew commercial aircraft in the Australian outback, one of the few female pilots to take up this challenge, and piloted the first all-female crewed Qantas flight. This was before contaminated cabin air ended her flying career in 1997. She spent the following decades building the evidence base on aircraft cabin air contamination, with a PhD, an MSc, peer-reviewed research and a leading role in her home country’s Senate inquiry into cabin air quality. Her focus in her final years was on lobular breast cancer, and it is on this endeavour that I was pleased to support her as her local MP.

Susan was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2013. It was a one millimetre mark—no lump, no pain. Two mammograms and two ultrasounds told her that there was nothing to worry about. An MRI scan found 2.5 cm and surgery then confirmed 7 cm. That gap between what standard imaging can see and what is actually there is the heart of why lobular breast cancer needs its own research programme. It behaves differently. It is missed because it is different and it is currently treated exactly the same as the most common form of the disease, because the underlying biology has never been properly funded.

In May 2023, with her husband Tristan, Susan launched the Lobular Moon Shot Project in Horsham. She built it from nothing into a campaign that has cross-party support in this House, a partnership with the Manchester Breast Centre and a research plan costing £20 million over five years.

In June 2025, Susan travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme that she had spent years fighting for. It was a programme that, of course, she knew she would never benefit from herself. Nine days later, Susan died. She never received a reply from No. 10 and never got a chance to make her case to the then Health Secretary. So today, I will again make the case to the Government on behalf of Susan, the 22 patients a day who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer, and the 463 MPs who have publicly supported her campaign so far, which I believe is the highest number of MPs to publicly support any individual campaign.

Every day, 22 women in this country are told that they have lobular breast cancer—that is over 8,000 a year. This is not a rare disease; in fact, it is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He has been very vocal on this subject matter and we all support him. I apologise to him, to you, Mrs Hobhouse, and to the ladies in the Public Gallery today, because I have an early flight home so I cannot be here to make a longer contribution to the debate.

This debate is not just about the women the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Alongside Northern Ireland’s Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, I have met women in Northern Ireland who have lobular cancer. Some of them will not have a long time in this world and I was very moved by what they told us. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time for the Minister and the Government to ensure that the small amount of money that is needed to help to alleviate the health issues for women with lobular breast cancer is made available, as well as the money that is needed for research? If that happens, the ladies who are here today and my constituents in Northern Ireland can get the help they need.

[John Milne]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and I very much agree. I also note that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is potentially our next Prime Minister, comes from Manchester, has visited the clinic and is already familiar with the campaign, so I am hopeful.

As I was saying, lobular breast cancer is the sixth most prevalent cancer in women. That puts it ahead of melanoma cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer combined. Incredibly, there is still no specific treatment.

Breast cancer as a whole costs this country over £3 billion a year. It takes around 11,200 lives annually, or the lives of roughly 31 women a day. Many of these are lobular cases, yet lobular breast cancer receives none of the targeted treatment that drives down mortality for other forms of this disease. Every woman who is diagnosed with lobular breast cancer is given the same drugs, the same protocols and the same guidelines as someone with an entirely different cancer. That is because the basic biology of lobular has never been established.

It is this gap that the Lobular Moon Shot Project exists to close. We need £20 million over five years, which is just £4 million a year to crack the biology of this disease. That is not speculative research; it is a certain outcome. Other researchers in the UK and around the world can then take things forward to find targeted treatments, because this is a world problem and the world can find the solutions. Of course, there are many demands on Government funding and the national budget is always under pressure, but I think we would be hard pushed to find another project with such a relatively small need for such a big reward. This is a precise unfunded gap, and we already have a delivery partner in the shape of the Manchester Breast Centre, which is ready to begin this work.

I will conclude by quoting Susan’s husband, Tristan, who is sitting behind me in the Gallery—it is strange that I have to speak these words rather than him, but that is the procedure of the House. He said:

“The last overseas holiday Susan and I took together was to Easter Island, one of the most remote places on earth. Like so many people, I had always imagined the island’s famous stone statues—the moai—looking out across the Pacific Ocean. But when we arrived, we discovered something rather beautiful. Most of them face inland. We were told that they were positioned that way because they watch over their people rather than looking out to sea. Whether that is history, tradition or simply one interpretation, it touched us both deeply.

Before we left, Susan found a beautifully carved wooden replica of one of the moai. We brought it home together, and today it sits in our house. Every time I look at it, I think of Susan. It reminds me that although she is no longer physically with me, her love, her courage and everything she stood for remain with me every single day. In my heart, I like to think she is still watching over me, just as those remarkable statues have watched over their people for generations.

If Susan could stand in Westminster Hall today, she would not ask Members to remember her. She would instead ask you to remember the thousands of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer every year who still have no treatments designed specifically for their disease. That is why this debate matters. That is why the Lobular Moon Shot project matters. And that is why Susan’s legacy deserves not only our admiration, but our action.

As Susan’s husband, I know she would have been deeply humbled that Members from every corner of this House have come together today to honour her life. She never sought recognition for herself. She simply wanted to leave the world a little safer, a little fairer and a little kinder than she found it. My sincere hope is that history will remember this debate not simply as a tribute to one remarkable woman, but as the day Parliament chose to transform admiration into action for future generations of women diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. That would have been the greatest tribute we could ever have paid to Dr Susan Michaelis.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm. I am currently not imposing a time limit, but I suggest that Members keep their speeches to a maximum of eight minutes especially if they intervene on others.

15:12

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my friend the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for the initiative to lead this debate. Although she is not present in the debate, I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is a great campaigner on this issue. That really demonstrates the cross-party support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

I also pay tribute to one of my constituents, Katie Swinburne. She is a mother of three and a very popular local schoolteacher, and she has lobular breast cancer. I first became aware of Katie through Dehenna Davison, who was the MP for Bishop Auckland before me. She did fantastic work supporting Katie as her constituent at the time, and anybody who knew my predecessor knows that she was a formidable single-issue campaigner. When I was elected, Katie asked to see me, and I was delighted to pick up the baton and support my constituent. In fact, this Saturday she is organising a fair and a tabletop sale in her village of Hilton to raise funds for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

Through Katie, I was privileged to be introduced to Dr Susan Michaelis and her husband Tristan Loraine. Susan was visiting Katie in her home in County Durham. Through the Lobular Moon Shot Project, I have observed a real sisterhood and solidarity among those who are campaigning together.

I have never been in the position of being told that I have terminal cancer, and I find it difficult to imagine, but I can imagine people facing that have a choice about how they spend their remaining years, months and weeks on this Earth. Do they spend it on holiday? Do they look to enjoy all of life’s riches and pleasures? Susan chose to spend it in the service of others, campaigning for the science to be done to develop a cure for lobular breast cancer. She founded the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Not only is that a campaign for better cancer research funding, but it has also developed a real solidarity among people suffering from this type of cancer. I was privileged to meet Susan and her husband and to learn about the Lobular Moon Shot campaign.

As the hon. Member for Horsham said, this was not Susan’s first experience of campaigning. She had success campaigning on aviation safety, in particular on jet fuel and pollution in cabins, a potential cause of her own cancer.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project has been successful so far in raising significant funds, which have been used to develop funding proposals for early work. As we have heard, there is an opportunity to fund significant research at Manchester University. I declare an interest as an alumnus of Manchester.

I was privileged to meet the campaigners and the former Health Secretary. That led to a commitment from the Government to issue a highlight notice, which demonstrates the importance that they place on this type of research. I respect the Government’s approach, which has been to say that while we all want to find a cure and there is a need to do the scientific research, it is important to do that through a peer-reviewed process and through competitive funding rounds, because that is what produces the best science. It is, however, vital that those funding rounds go ahead and that the funding is made available to meet the need.

As we have heard already, the unique aspect of lobular breast cancer is that it is very difficult to discover. It often goes undetected, and only 28% of cases are detected at stage one, compared with 38% of non-lobular breast cancers. There are 8,000 cases a year. The campaign is calling for the discovery science to be done. I appreciate that the Minister today is answering on behalf of the Department for Health and Social Care, but we also need engagement with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, because we need bespoke funding pools from UK Research and Innovation that universities such as Manchester can tap into, to make sure that this vital work gets done. I was privileged to meet Professor Rob Clarke from Manchester and hear about his work.

I urge the Minister to take up this issue. Two years on since I was elected, and three or four years on from when I first heard about this campaign, progress has been made, but it is too slow. So many people are in situations that I cannot even imagine, and they are giving their time to campaign for something so important, not even necessarily for themselves, but for the generations that come after them. I implore the Government to listen to their calls and to do what we can to make sure that the correct funding pools are available so that we can, once and for all, get this research done and answer their pleas.

15:18

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. When I met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team in April, their determination to improve outcomes for patients was unmistakeable.

The debate is also an opportunity to remember Dr Susan Michaelis on the first anniversary of her passing. After being diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2011, Susan devoted her final years to advancing research into this awful disease. In 2023, she founded the Lobular Moon Shot Project, and in December 2024, many colleagues and I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate to echo the project’s call for greater investment in lobular breast cancer research. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will be able to give us some idea of whether the Government listened to us all those months ago and whether they are listening today, because very little appears to have changed.

Invasive lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, with between 7,500 and 8,000 people diagnosed every year in the UK. That is around 22 women every day. Despite accounting for around one in seven breast cancer diagnoses, this form of the disease remains under-researched with no specifically designed treatment. As a result, patients are often treated with therapies known to be less effective for lobular tumours, increasing the risk of metastatic disease, greater toxicity and poorer outcomes.

That is not inevitable. With targeted research, outcomes can improve. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is calling for £20 million over five years to fund lobular-specific research. In the grand scheme of things, £20 million over five years is not a lot of money, and that investment would deepen understanding of the disease, support the development of targeted therapies, and improve diagnosis and treatment for thousands of patients. Without it, progress will remain far too slow.

The project estimates that 3.75 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer over the next decade, making need for action so very urgent. The investment also represents good value. Modelling by the Lobular Moon Shot Project suggests that preventing or delaying metastasis in even a relatively small number of patients would more than offset the proposed £20 million investment through reduced treatment costs. I know that many across the cancer community are eagerly awaiting the Government’s workforce plan. Can the Minister update the House on when it might be published?

In closing, I urge the Government to support the Lobular Moon Shot Project and commit £20 million to improve research, diagnosis and treatment for invasive lobular breast cancer. I also once again pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, without whose tireless campaigning, I doubt we would be here today debating this issue or pressing for the change that so many patients and families deserve.

15:22

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this hugely important debate and for his powerful speech.

Just a few weeks ago, I stood outside Downing Street alongside women living with invasive lobular breast cancer, their families and campaigners for the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s 22-minute silence. Those 22 minutes represented the 22 women who lose their lives to lobular breast cancer every day. It was a deeply moving experience. Standing in silence with women who are living with the disease alongside those who have lost loved ones brought home why today’s debate really matters. They were not asking for sympathy; they were asking to be seen. They were asking for better research, earlier diagnosis and better outcomes for women diagnosed in the future.

Today, I want to share the story of my constituent, Trish. She has kindly given me permission to share her story because she hopes that by doing so, another woman may recognise the signs of lobular breast cancer sooner. Trish did everything that we ask women to do. Between 2014 and 2025, she attended six mammograms—six opportunities for cancer to be found, and six occasions when she believed that if something was wrong, it would be detected. But none of those mammograms picked up any signs.

Like many women, Trish believed that cancer meant finding a lump. It was not a lump that led to her diagnosis; it was a shadow. After getting out of the shower one morning, while putting her hair up, she noticed a shadow underneath her breast. She took a photograph and could clearly see dimpling in her skin. Thankfully, her GP listened and referred her urgently under the two-week-wait pathway. I place on the record my thanks to that GP, because despite there being no obvious lump, they recognised that something was not right.

At the breast clinic, Trish underwent mammograms, ultrasounds and biopsies. Initially, she was reassured that there was no lump to feel. She was then told that there was a small area of concern. The plan was for a lumpectomy and a short course of radiotherapy, and she recalls being told that she would likely be back at work in a month. She underwent an MRI, which is when everything changed. It showed that the tumour measured approximately 72 millimetres. Following surgery, it was confirmed to be 75 millimetres. Trish’s treatment changed completely: she needed a mastectomy with immediate reconstruction, followed by 15 rounds of radiotherapy. She is currently undergoing 10 years of hormone therapy. She certainly was not back at work after a month.

Trish’s experience raises important questions. Lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, yet many women have never even heard of it. Unlike the breast cancers many of us are more familiar with, lobular breast cancer often does not form a distinct lump. Instead, it grows in strand-like tumours, making it much harder to detect on mammograms and feel during examination. That is why women with lobular breast cancer are so often diagnosed later, when tumours are much larger and treatment becomes far more extensive. For Trish, six mammograms over more than a decade failed to detect her cancer.

That is why the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project matters. Campaigners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for research into lobular breast cancer that reflects the scale of the challenge. They are asking for earlier diagnosis, better understanding of how the disease behaves, improved imaging and more effective treatments. Above all, they are asking that women with lobular breast cancer are no longer overlooked because their cancer behaves differently. Awareness of lobular breast cancer must improve. For many years, the message has quite rightly been, “Check for lumps,” but breast cancer is not always a lump; women also need to know about dimpling, puckering, changes in breast shape, thickening of the breast tissue and changes to the skin. As Trish said to me,

“You should know your breasts as well as you know your face.”

I welcome the engagement that Ministers have already had with campaigners and researchers, and I hope that today’s debate marks another step forward.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and other colleagues are making some very powerful points today. Is she going to come on to the important issue of medical training and education for doctors and other medical professionals, and the possible benefits of greater public awareness? The Department of Health and Social Care has historically done very important work leading on public awareness campaigns on illnesses and other issues in the health world. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to highlight that as well.

[Sarah Hall]

Trish is a phenomenal campaigner—a lot like Susan—and she wants to work together to create an awareness campaign so that women understand that there is a difference between types of breast cancer. We are looking to establish a support group for women who have lobular breast cancer; that is in the works. On training, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: recognition and training forms part of research, understanding and detection—what it is and what causes it—but also what we need to do in the training required by people in the profession.

I hope that the Government will continue working with researchers, clinicians and the Lobular Moon Shot Project to improve understanding of lobular breast cancer, support further research and ensure that women receive the earliest and most accurate diagnosis possible. Behind every statistic is someone like Trish, a woman who did everything that she was supposed to and who wants her experience to help somebody else. Next week, many of the women I stood with outside Downing Street will gather once again. My hope is that one day, they will no longer need to, and that through better research, greater awareness and earlier diagnosis, fewer women will hear the words that Trish heard. I hope that colleagues from across will continue to stand with those women until that becomes a reality.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I encourage Members to speak into their microphones; it is quite difficult even for me to hear the debate, so it must be even more difficult for the people sitting in the Public Gallery. Please direct your remarks into the Chamber. I know there is a great temptation to direct it to our guests—we know they are here and we acknowledge them. I ask Members to speak up and speak into their microphones so that everybody can hear.

15:30

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for the reminder. I very sincerely thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for leading the effort to secure this debate and for his incredibly powerful speech. His recounting of Susan’s final visit to Parliament and the words of her husband, Tristan, was very moving indeed. He has done Susan, her loved ones and the thousands of supporters of her campaign proud today. I too welcome Tristan, Susan’s aunt Sally and her cousin Andrew to Parliament. Tristan kindly shared with us the briefing that he prepared for Members ahead of the debate. I know that many of us have drawn on it this afternoon and absorbed it.

Susan had just one symptom: one tiny millimetre-long mark on her breast. She had no pain and no lump—none of the warning signs that many of us have been told to look out for. But that tiny mark concealed something a lot bigger: 7 cm of invasive lobular breast cancer. There is something profoundly cruel about that. The disease was growing silently while every reassuring scan understandably gave Susan and her family reason to believe that everything was fine.

As we heard, incredibly, nine days before she passed away, Susan launched the scientific programme for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Even while facing the unimaginable, she was looking beyond herself and fighting to ensure that other families might one day be spared what hers endured. I have no doubt that she would be immensely proud to see her family and her Member of Parliament continuing that work in her memory.

Since I was elected, 14 of my constituents have contacted me about breast cancer. They felt compelled to write to me because this disease touched their lives or the lives of somebody they love. One in particular contacted me in every way she could to command my attention and make sure I signed up to this campaign. If my two years in this House have taught me anything, it is that for every person who writes to us, hundreds more are affected but, for whatever reason, do not write in.

I would be surprised if there is anybody in this Chamber whose life has not been shaped in some way by cancer. My family unexpectedly lost my wonderful aunt during the pandemic, after her cancer was spotted too late. It reaches into every family, every community and every constituency. I am sure most of us know somebody whose chair at the dinner table is empty because of cancer, or someone who is still sitting there because it was found in time. That is the difference that early diagnosis makes. A cancer diagnosis is literally a race against time. Every second of delay gives cancer a head start that it really does not need.

Our NHS can only fight with the tools that we give it. If those tools cannot see a disease or cannot treat it properly, we cannot expect patients to get the outcomes that they deserve. Invasive lobular breast cancer accounts for about 15% of all breast cancer diagnoses, and yet there are still no treatments development specifically for it. Across the world, 1,000 people are diagnosed with the disease every single day, and for them this debate is about far more than statistics; it is about whether future patients hear the words, “We found it early,” rather than, “If only we had got it sooner.” Cancer is a race against time, and every missed diagnosis gives the disease a head start.

As we have heard, the Lobular Moon Shot Project seeks just £20 million over five years to better understand the biology of the disease and develop targeted treatments. It has already secured the support of hundreds of Members of this House. That level of cross-party support reflects a belief that patients with this horrendous disease deserve to be seen and understood, and to benefit from research that gives them the same hope as every other breast cancer patient. That was Dr Susan Michaelis’s mission, and that was her call to us. As the hon. Member for Horsham said, we have a window of opportunity to do that, and I hope that every possible effort is made to seize it.

15:34

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Like others, I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for introducing the debate and for how he did it.

I want to make a prediction. I think the remaining speakers are going to say that they support this campaign and that they want to see a difference, and they will acknowledge the gap that needs to be filled. Our challenge is making that pledge and those words real. I have been in debates like this before—we all agree that something has to be done, yet we come back and speak about it again and again. Perhaps, if we all carry this campaign forward, this is the time to actually make it happen.

[Sam Rushworth]

My hon. Friend just made an excellent point. We know the research questions that need to be answered. Does he agree that it should not be beyond UKRI to put out a specific call asking people, through a competitive peer review process, to answer those questions?

[Dr Arthur]

Exactly. In a former life, I was an academic. UKRI does at times engage with academics to fine-tune such questions. UKRI provides funding to universities, if needed, to bring the very best people to the UK either temporarily or on longer-term contracts to help to make a difference in the UK. Those things are perhaps all part of the solution. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I am grateful for the opportunity to support this vital debate. It shines much-needed light on a disease that is still under-resourced, as has been said, and it honours the legacy of a woman who dedicated her final years to fighting it: the late Susan Michaelis. I was not fortunate enough to meet her but, as a result of the excellent introduction of the hon. Member for Horsham, I feel I know a little bit about her and her character. I am grateful for that introduction.

Lobular breast cancer, despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, has historically received a mere 1% of breast cancer research funding. Susan refused to accept that disparity and the Lobular Moon Shot Project is her legacy—but it has to be more than a project. Hopefully, progress will be her real legacy. The project demands better treatment for every woman who receives a lobular breast cancer diagnosis. That is why all of us are in the Chamber for this debate.

I recently received an incredibly powerful letter from a leading oncologist, Dr Michie. She is based in Edinburgh, treats patients in Scotland and works closely with the community of those with lobular breast cancer. She expressed deep professional frustration on behalf of her patients, explicitly stating that lobular breast cancer has been neglected for too long. People who meet patients day in, day out and week in, week out still have a real frustration about the lack of progress. Dr Michie’s letter also highlighted the fact that lobular breast cancer is different from the more common ductal types of breast cancer, with an entirely unique tumour biology, different responses to drug treatments, and distinct and highly challenging patterns of spread.

The different response to drug treatments is really important because, in the absence of proper treatments, women are often faced with a drug that was not actually designed for the condition that they have. Yet clinical trials rarely even present separate response data for lobular cases: today a grand total of zero lobular-specific clinical trials are actively recruiting patients in the UK. That should shame us, based on what we have discussed already in this debate, and on the scale and breadth of the campaign that has been run.

Additionally, the incidence of lobular breast cancer is rising rapidly, climbing by nearly 3% annually. Because it does not form the typical lump, it is notoriously difficult to detect using classical imaging. That is 3% annual growth in diagnoses of this condition—I know that, as a Government, we are really keen on growth but not that kind. To fix it, we need to improve our pre-clinical understanding of how and why the disease spreads. I believe that the work package plan of the Lobular Moon Shot Project is precisely the kind of ambitious and collaborative plan that can help us to improve patient outcomes across the board. If people do not believe that, let us have a conversation about how it can be improved.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member speaks about the value of research. Some 50 years ago this year, my cousin was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had three years. She left five children under the age of 10. Yesterday I met Lesley, who was diagnosed 20 years ago. Lesley is well. She is still receiving treatment, but that demonstrates the value of the advances that research can make. Does the hon. Member agree that it is absolutely vital that we invest in this area?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. Yesterday I met with activists from Cancer Research UK just outside Parliament, before they came in. Cancer Research UK had around 100 activists there who had been touched by cancer, in all its shapes and forms, and although that big room was full of people who were full of energy, they were just a tiny part of the footprint of cancer and its impacts across the UK—absolutely tip-of-the-iceberg stuff.

We have to acknowledge the emotional impact on individuals and families, but also the economic impact. We should never be ashamed of talking about that. There is also the economic impact of bringing the best research to the UK so that our laboratories, universities and hospitals can work on this issues. All that is a push in the right direction.

The Government and the bio-sciences sector are notoriously slow-moving. We need to expedite work in this area; a dedicated funding commitment from the Government to launch the Moon Shot Project would help do that. When we talk about housing, we talk about being builders not blockers. Maybe we should use the same narrative and energy for this matter.

On a related note, while the fight for a new funding model is critical, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of immediate and compassionate support for people who have the condition. In my constituency we are incredibly fortunate to have the House of Hope, a wonderful charity that provides a safe space for women navigating a breast cancer diagnosis and for their families, including their husbands and children. As I understand it, they plan to start a support group to focus specifically on lobular breast cancer, which will meet for the first time on 11 August. I wish them well in that endeavour and I am wearing my House of Hope badge today. They actually gave me three badges with different designs, but I went for the glittery one because we all need a bit of glitter in our lives sometimes.

I have always found the House of Hope to be an incredibly inspiring and hospitable place. I encourage any woman with a diagnosis in Edinburgh and the Lothians or further afield to check out the services it provides. I am sure the Minister would be welcome to visit any time and I can guarantee him it will be cooler in Edinburgh than it is in London right now.

I return to Susan and her project. A clear and fundamental shift is needed in how we fund and prioritise research into this condition. I strongly encourage the Minister to actively engage with the project’s demands, meet with the campaign and agree a plan going forward for how we can address their concerns. As has been said already, 22 women will be diagnosed with this condition today and we need to give them and their families hope.

I checked Hansard this morning: in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, lobular breast cancer was mentioned 10 times. Just two years into the current Parliament, we have mentioned it 56 times. We need to stop talking about it in this place and actually start getting stuff done.

15:42

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for leading this important debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

On the first anniversary of her death, I want to pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis and her tireless campaigning. Today’s debate celebrates a legacy that continues to inspire researchers, clinicians, patients and parliamentarians alike. While the debate is about her story with lobular breast cancer, I would like to focus on what made her Susan. Although Susan was known for her campaigning on lobular breast cancer, she was so much more than that—something her loved ones, who are here today, know all too well.

Susan was an Australian who grew up in Melbourne before moving to the UK in 2003. As a child, she had dreams of becoming a pilot, but because of the lack of women in the industry at the time she settled on working in the travel industry instead. However, she soon realised that she really did want to become a pilot, so she set about becoming a qualified commercial pilot. Her dream came true and she trailblazed as the co-pilot on the first all-female crewed flight for the Qantas Group.

Susan also obtained a PhD at the University of New South Wales in Sydney in 2010. Her thesis was titled “Health and Flight Safety Implications from Exposure to Contaminated Air in Aircraft”. She was a researcher who devoted her career to improving public health and aviation safety, and her contributions towards aircraft cabin air contamination remain recognised today.

In 2007, Susan and her husband raised concerns with the world’s leading jet engine oil manufacturers about crew and passenger exposure to engine oil decomposition products. While most ignored the issue, the French company NYCO investigated and confirmed that the fuel additives affected gene expression. As a result, NYCO developed a new, less hazardous jet engine oil, NYCO 940 SE. The oil received SAE approval in 2023 and US military approval for use in all NATO aircrafts in 2024.

However, her legacy undoubtedly remains the Lobular Moon Shot Project and the change that she championed while knowing that she would not live to reap the benefits. Susan was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2013 after a small 1 mm mark was noticed on her left breast. She had no lumps and had experienced no pain. Two mammograms and two ultrasound scans showed no cause for concern. However, an MRI scan suggested the presence of a 2.5 cm area of lobular breast cancer, which was later confirmed by a biopsy.

Susan underwent a double mastectomy, and post-operative pathology revealed that the cancer actually measured 7 cm. That was much larger than what had initially been detected and was missed entirely by mammograms and ultrasounds. Had Susan been given regular MRI scans in the last 10 years before her diagnosis, her lobular breast cancer would have been detected much earlier. For all cancers, early diagnosis and effective treatment is essential to increase survival.

Susan’s story tragically highlights how those challenges continue to be experienced by the millions of patients living with lobular breast cancer. Current NHS imaging techniques can fail to detect the disease accurately, which often leads to diagnosis at a later and more advanced stage. Unlike other breast cancers, lobular breast cancer tends to spread out in straight lines rather than amassing to form a firm lump. A patient is more likely to have a thickened area of breast tissue as a symptom, rather than the expected lump. That is what makes lobular breast cancer so difficult to detect during a physical examination, and when using imaging scans, such as mammograms and ultrasounds.

Research indicates that MRIs, which can produce detailed images of the inside of the breast, offer improved detection and characterisation of lobular breast cancer. If Susan had been given a regular MRI scan in the 10 years prior to her diagnosis, there is a very real chance that her cancer would have been detected sooner. That would have reduced the risk of it metastasising and ultimately claiming her life. Susan also only received generic breast cancer treatments as there is currently no specialised treatment for lobular breast cancer. Susan underwent eight systemic treatments over the span of 12 years. That led to the lobular breast cancer spreading to her spine in 2021. A PET-CT scan was unable to detect the disease progression, but once again, it was detected on an MRI scan—something that is not available on the NHS.

Lobular breast cancer accounts for one in seven—or 15%—of all new breast cancer diagnoses. It is the second most common sub-type of breast cancer. There are approximately 8,400 lobular breast cancer diagnoses in the UK each year. That amounts to 22 people being diagnosed every single day. More women are impacted by lobular breast cancer than cancers of the kidney, brain, pancreas, liver or ovaries. The impact of any cancer for both the patient and their loved ones is always devastating, and lobular breast cancer is no exception. We must better our understanding of this disease to improve treatment and outcomes for all those affected. It is unacceptable that this cancer has no specific treatments and is treated in the same way as the more common types of invasive cancer.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project, created in May 2023 in Horsham by Susan alongside her husband, is striving to change that. The campaign is asking for the Government to invest £20 million over five years to understand the biology of the disease to enable targeted treatments. Alongside all my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I wholeheartedly support and will continue to support this very important project. The Liberal Democrats were the first major party to fully endorse this campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has written to both the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary on Susan’s behalf, and our Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), has repeatedly raised this issue in the Chamber.

Support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project has grown to 465 Members of Parliament, making it the most widely supported health campaign in Parliament. On 15 July 2025, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), stated that he had instructed his chief scientific adviser to plan a path forward to understand the biology behind this cancer to make a difference to those affected. One year on, and with a new Health Secretary, this research project has still not got the green light. We cannot allow this to fall through the cracks. I urge the Minister and all Members here today, regardless of their party, to continue to advocate on this issue.

Alongside supporting the work of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, the Liberal Democrats are clear: cancer must be a top priority for any Government, and the UK should be a global leader in cancer research and outcomes. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients would be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral. The Liberal Democrats would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment.

To end, I once again want to honour the legacy of Dr Susan Michaelis and her Lobular Moon Shot Project. The contributions made here today show the continuing impact of her legacy, which inspires me, and everyone in the room and beyond. I once again ask the Minister to play his part in ensuring that Susan’s legacy continues for her and all those who have been and continue to be impacted by lobular breast cancer. Will he today commit to finding the £20 million to fund the research so that more people survive lobular breast cancer?

15:50

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing today’s debate, and to the Members from across the House who have given their voice to this campaign over a number of years. It is entirely right that Parliament should pause today to consider not just the science, the policy and the funding, but the human reality that sits behind all three of those things.

Behind the words “lobular breast cancer” are people who knew something was wrong, but the system could not prove it. That is the point at the heart of today’s debate. This is not a call for special treatment or a demand that we place one cancer above another; it is a recognition that different cancers behave differently, present differently and may require different approaches if we are serious about improving outcomes.

Today, we are also remembering Dr Susan Michaelis. Many people in public life are described as courageous, but in Susan’s case that word feels insufficient. She was, as we have heard, a commercial pilot, a researcher, a campaigner, a wife and a woman whose instinct, when faced with injustice or uncertainty, was not to turn away from it but to investigate it. She had already devoted much of her professional life to public safety, particularly in the aviation sector. We have heard about how she challenged assumptions, gathered evidence and pursued truth in an area where the consequences mattered for passengers, crews and the wider public. In 2013, she received her devastating diagnosis of invasive lobular breast cancer. As we have heard today, her symptoms were not dramatic; they presented as just a tiny mark on her breast.

Two mammograms and two ultrasounds failed to identify the disease, and it was ultimately identified by an MRI scan. We have heard how that revealed what appeared to be a relatively small lesion of about inch that was later confirmed to be over 7 cm. That single account tells us why this debate continues to matter and shows the particular challenge of a cancer that can be harder to detect through standard imaging.

Remarkably, Susan did not live her final years in retreat from the world; she continued with her work and her research, and continued campaigning. As we have heard, nine days before her death, she travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme for the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project, knowing full well that any breakthrough would come too late for her. That is an extraordinary act of generosity and a challenge to all of us in this place. If someone is living with advanced cancer and can spend her final days and the last of her strength ask for progress for others, surely it is our responsibility and Government to find the clarity and urgency to respond.

As we have heard, lobular breast cancer is not rare. It is the second most common type of breast cancer, accounting for around 15% of cases, but despite that it too often remains hidden in plain sight.

[Seamus Logan]

This is not a party-political issue; it is something the shadow Minister and the whole House can agree on. In 2022, the Scottish Government began the process of improving their imaging kits with the introduction of 3D mammography, which is a major step forward. Two months ago, the Scottish Parliament lodged a motion supporting the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project and called for the £20 million to be allocated. Does he agree that the breadth of support for this campaign—440 MPs now support it, including myself—is now irresistible, and that the Minister should award the funding?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman is right; there is collective support for doing more on this issue. That starts with getting the research right. Without the research, we do not know how to plan for the treatments of the future. I will move on to the other points, but he is also entirely right that this is not a party-political issue, but one that affects all of us and all of our constituents. We have to work with a sense of urgency around it.

As we have heard, the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project is looking for £20 million over five years to advance the understanding of invasive lobular breast cancer and to support better detection, treatment and surveillance. We cannot dispute that that is a significant sum, but we have to look at it in the context of national health spending and what cancer costs: the cost to families and patients and the cost to the NHS when it is detected late or treated inadequately. We have to bear those factors in mind.

We should also be clear about what research funding means in practice. It does not mean a guarantee of easy answers. Science does not work like that, but it does mean giving our best minds the chance to ask the right questions. It means building the evidence base and moving beyond a generic understanding of breast cancer and towards a more precise understanding of this specific disease. That is the direction of travel that we have seen over a number of years in modern healthcare. We have seen it in genomics and targeted therapies and we see it in the increasing recognition that treatment must be shaped by the biology of the disease and the needs of the patient. There is no reason that lobular breast cancer should be left behind in that progress.

There has been movement—it is right to acknowledge that. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has issued a highlight notice encouraging applications for research into lobular breast cancer; the Government have published their own national cancer plan; and the Health Bill speaks of research duties and innovation. Those are by no means meaningless, but they are not yet enough. That is why today’s debate must focus on delivery, so I ask the Minister whether the Government will set out a timeline to fund the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project. If the answer is yes, campaigners deserve to know how and through what mechanism that will happen. If the answer is no, they deserve an honest explanation. Is it a financial barrier? Is it a scientific one? Is it procedural? Are the Government waiting for further proposals, reviews or assessments? The people who have campaigned with such dignity on this issue should not be left trying to decode in silence.

I also ask the Minister to address the issue of guidance. Lobular breast cancer is referred to only in limited form in existing national breast cancer guidance, and campaigners have called for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to review whether the guidance properly reflects the disease. That guidance, of course, shapes clinical practice and influences what clinicians look for, what tests are considered and how treatment is approached. If the evidence is not yet strong enough to support separate recommendations, that should strengthen the case for targeted research, not weaken it. We cannot use the absence of evidence as a reason not to gather it. That would be a circular argument. The patients affected by this disease deserve much better.

There is also a wider lesson here about women’s health. Too often women’s symptoms have been dismissed as vague, complex or difficult to categorise. Too often women have had to become their own advocates at the very moment when they are frightened, unwell and least able to fight. One duty of a good health system is to reduce the burden on the patient and prove that they are worth listening to. Susan Michaelis understood that deeply. As we heard earlier, on 24 June last year, while on oxygen and clearly in pain, she stood outside Downing Street as part of a silent vigil representing the 22 people diagnosed every day with lobular breast cancer in the United Kingdom. She delivered a letter asking for help. Two weeks later she died wearing her Lobular Moon Shot Project T-shirt. That is an image that should stay with all of us today, not because policies should be made on emotion alone—clearly they should not. Policy has to be evidence-based, financially responsible and clinically sound. But should policy not be stripped of a moral seriousness, either. Evidence tells us what may work. Compassion reminds us why we keep working. Responsibility requires us to bring those two factors together.

The last Government invested in cancer research, including support for the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden biomedical research centre, along with wider work relevant to lobular breast cancer. In opposition we have continued to press the Government on the Moon Shot Project, including through the shadow health team and other colleagues. But this should not, as we have discussed, become a party political contest. Cancer does not observe party lines, and neither should our determination to improve the outcomes for patients.

The test for the Government is relatively simple. Can they turn sympathy into a plan? Can they gave campaigners a clear route forward? Can they match the scale of the problem with a response that is specific, funded and time-bound? What those affected by lobular breast cancer need is not another expression of admiration for their bravery and courage. They need progress: a system that sees their cancer sooner, treatments shaped by its biology, surveillance that reflects the risk of recurrence and spread, guidance that recognises the particular character of the disease and research funded at a level that gives discovery a fair chance.

Susan Michaelis gave the final chapter of her life to this cause. She did so not for herself, but for women she would never meet and families she would never know. That legacy is worthy of more than a mere tribute; it is worthy of action. I hope the Minister will leave this debate having listened carefully, but also prepared to act decisively. The Government should not only meet the campaigners, but set out the remaining barriers, publish a route to a decision and make clear whether they will fund the Moon Shot project. Dr Susan Michaelis spent her life making hidden risks visible; the task before us now is to ensure that lobular breast cancer is hidden no longer.

16:01

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this vital debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for campaigning on this topic, following her own diagnosis of lobular breast cancer.

I add my tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, as today marks one year since she passed away from lobular breast cancer. As a founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, she campaigned tirelessly on behalf of women diagnosed with lobular breast cancer and raised awareness for the condition. I also pay tribute to members of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, including Susan’s husband, Tristan Loraine, for picking up the mantle, continuing the important work of the project and carrying Susan’s torch forward.

I recognise the number of charities that carry out important work in this area, such as Lobular Breast Cancer UK, Breast Cancer Now and Cancer Research UK, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who continue to provide support, many of whom we have heard from today.

Lobular breast cancer accounts for 15% of breast cancer cases. However, as we have heard, this form of cancer sadly goes undetected in too many women. We are determined to transform diagnosis and outcomes for patients. Earlier this year, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, who is the lead DHSC Minister on this issue—I am standing in for her today—and Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shoot Project. Alongside Government research funders, they discussed the Lobular Moon Shot’s work, listened to the experiences of lobular breast cancer from those who attended, and discussed how to advance research in this vital area.

Following that meeting, last month Lord Vallance hosted a scientific roundtable that brought together a range of researchers, clinicians and industry representatives to identify opportunities to advance research and innovation. At that meeting, attendees agreed that one of the next steps should be to encourage collaborative research and funding applications across multiple existing schemes, including for basic discovery science. I would like to emphasise that Government research funders stand ready to support that work as it progresses.

We acknowledge and share the Lobular Moon Shoot Project’s ambition for researchers to take a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to addressing the unique challenges of lobular breast cancer. Government responsibility for delivering cancer research is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation.

The Medical Research Council primarily supports the discovery sciences and fundamental biological research, which is the focus of the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Through MRC, UKRI has emphasised its commitment to supporting interdisciplinary team-based research across its funding schemes and highlighted support for collaborative activities to provide a platform on which to build a portfolio of research in this important area. NIHR’s research is complementary to the MRC’s focus, supporting the translation of discovery science into patient benefit.

Through the MRC and NIHR, we are already funding research into lobular breast cancer. For example, a breast cancer screening study is investigating whether a new, faster MRI scan could detect breast cancers earlier. The FAST—first post-contrast subtracted—MRI is a new type of scan that aims to detect cancers, including lobular breast cancer, that may not be routinely picked up by mammograms during a first screening visit. The £1.36 million study is jointly funded by the MRC and the NIHR. Furthermore, with a total investment of £32 million, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre support lobular breast cancer by combining translational research, precision diagnostics and targeted clinical trials to develop and test tailored treatments.

Promising discoveries are being made. Scientists at the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research have recently discovered a drug, currently being tested in clinical trials for a rare blood cancer, that could also be used to treat lobular breast cancer. Researchers now hope to progress the drug to clinical trials for lobular breast cancer. More widely, we are supporting world-leading research and development to enable the prevention of cancer and to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for people affected by the conditions. Cancer is a major area of NIHR spending. Reflecting its high priority, the institute spent £141.6 million on it in 2024-25. Alongside that, UKRI invested £198 million in cancer research in the same year.

We are investing in the best science, which explores lobular breast cancer both in isolation and in conjunction with other cancers, to maximise the opportunity to share learning and identify possible breakthroughs. Historically, the breast cancer research community has categorised the field around signalling, pathway and molecular presentation on tumours. Rather than naming a particular cancer sub-type, therefore, grants within the MRC portfolio focus on the understanding of molecular mechanisms common to both lobular breast cancer and invasive breast cancer.

We know that more research is needed. That is why both the MRC and NIHR are committed to continuing to support the development of high-quality, fundable research proposals. There are a range of existing opportunities across funders that support this developing portfolio. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025 to signal to researchers our interest in funding research into this area.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) was first.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I have supported my constituent Emma Hunwick and her campaigning on this issue. It is the third time I have attended a debate on this subject in the two years I have been an MP. I hear what the Minister says about research, but I think what supporters want is assurance that we will not be having a similar conversation again next year. They want confidence that we will have made some progress in the next 12 months.

[Stephen Kinnock]

In a nutshell, what I am trying to lay out is that it is not an either/or question. There is a tremendous amount of work going on to research cancer, including lobular breast cancer, which is a vital subset of that work.

The challenge for us is the idea of ringfencing £20 million, because ringfencing is not the standard process. The standard process is to have applications that are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to the public and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. If there is a difference of view in the Chamber today, it is whether we have an ecosystem of cutting-edge research, applications and competitive process, based on the principles I have just outlined, or a ringfenced fund.

I have to be absolutely clear and straight with my hon. Friend that currently the Government are not of the view that a ringfencing approach is the right way to go. The worry is that that approach could potentially cut across the ecosystem-based approach that we are seeking to nurture and foster, which we believe will deliver better outcomes in the end.

[Helen Maguire]

Thankfully, the Minister has clarified some of the issues that I was going to ask about. He says the Government are not necessarily looking to ringfence the £20 million, but are waiting for applications for research. The Lobular Moon Shot Project has already put forward some ideas on research. He has said that he stands ready to support the project, so I would just like some more specific detail. He says that we are waiting for applications for research, but does not what the Lobular Moon Shot Project has submitted or talked about fall within that?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately I am not the lead Minister on this issue, so I do not have the most up-to-date information on the proposal that has been submitted. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will speak with the ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, and write to the hon. Lady on that subject, providing an update on exactly where the proposal is in terms of the overall process that we have. Have I understood her intervention correctly?

[Helen Maguire]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Okay. I thank the hon. Lady. That is what we will do.

[Dr Arthur]

I appreciate that the Minister is substituting for another excellent Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); I am sad that she is not here, because she is fantastic. We ringfence money for brain tumour research—I know that that community wants more money, so I am not saying it is the gold standard, but we have made that choice, because we recognised the public concern about brain tumours. There is also public concern about lobular breast cancer and the feeling that people who have it are being left behind. It is fantastic that we have better screening coming on board, but ultimately people need treatment if they are diagnosed during the screening process.

The Minister highlighted the fact that there is a competitive bidding process. Is it the case that the bids are not good enough? If that is the case, can we invest money to improve the quality of those bids? As I said earlier, we could bring in better staff, perhaps from overseas, or invest in PhD students to work in this area.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that there are bids that are good enough and they are the ones that have attracted funding for research into lobular breast cancer. What I do not know at this moment is precisely where the live bids are and whether they are making the cut in terms of the quality that we are looking for. I will absolutely follow up with my ministerial colleague, and I will write to my hon. Friend on that point.

[Sam Rushworth]

I think there is a space between the two approaches. As wonderful as the Lobular Moon Shot Project is, I fully respect why the Government say that we cannot allow campaign groups to dictate which universities get x millions of pounds for particular projects, and I see the value of there being a peer-reviewed process through a competitive ecosystem. However, there is a space where we can go beyond a highlight notice, whereby the Government could specifically say, “We want research that will answer these specific sets of research questions.” I wonder whether that is something that he could take back to his colleagues for consideration.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will absolutely take that suggestion back. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about having a specific call for proposals. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South and get back to him.

Our approach to funding research is through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits. We also recognise that international research co-operation is fundamental to driving medical breakthroughs and saving lives. That is why the DHSC participates in and influences the EU cancer mission, which aims to improve the lives of more than 3 million people affected by cancer by 2030 through multi-country research calls and activities. For breast cancer, that includes a focus on driving screening innovation, including the MammoScreen project, supported by UKRI, which is developing safe, non-invasive, microwave-based imaging for more accurate screening.

The Government’s national cancer plan for England, published earlier this year, sets out our ambition to improve cancer outcomes and ensure that by 2035, three in four people diagnosed with cancer survive for five years or more. Research, innovation and earlier diagnosis are central to achieving that ambition. We know that too many women with lobular breast cancer face delays in diagnosis because it can be more difficult to detect. That is why the work being championed by the Lobular Moon Shot Project is so important.

The cancer plan recognises that improving outcomes depends on strengthening research, supporting innovation and bringing together researchers, clinicians, charities, industry and patients to tackle some of the biggest challenges in cancer care. That spirit of collaboration is exactly what we have seen through the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Through continued engagement with campaigners, researchers and patients, we want to support progress towards a better understanding of lobular breast cancer, and ultimately improvements in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes for the women affected by it. More broadly, the plan is about improving not only clinical outcomes, but people’s experience of cancer care. Through more personalised support and better co-ordinated services, we want to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care and support throughout their cancer journey.

The ambition of the national cancer plan is clear: to combine the strengths of our NHS, our research community and our life sciences sector so that patients benefit from the very best cancer care. That includes people living with lobular breast cancer who deserve the same progress, hope and opportunity as every other cancer patient.

The DHSC was pleased to discuss the issue of NHS breast cancer screening at the petitions debate opened by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) last month. The NHS breast screening programme offers all women in England between the ages of 50 and their 71st birthday the opportunity to be screened every three years for breast cancer, to help detect abnormalities and intervene early to reduce the number of lives lost to invasive breast cancer. In addition, some younger women at increased risk of breast cancer because of genetics or their family history are eligible for earlier, more frequent screening, sometimes using MRI rather than mammogram.

We are also investing in research to improve the early diagnosis of breast cancer through the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial, which is backed by £11 million in Government support via the NIHR. Almost 700,000 women from across the country will take part in the trial to test whether using AI to support radiologists increases the number of cancers detected in women taking part in the national breast cancer screening programme. The trial will evaluate multiple AI technologies to assist radiologists in screening mammograms for signs of cancer. It may enable one specialist to complete the process safely, freeing up hundreds of radiologists to tackle waiting lists and rising cancer rates.

My message to the research community is clear: research funding remains available, and that funding does not have a ceiling. We know that recent advances in technology and data science create a timely opportunity to accelerate progress. Our investment in research means that the UK is well positioned to lead research on this topic. We will continue to strongly encourage research applications. We stand ready to support the research community to develop and submit high-quality, ambitious proposals in remit for review.

Our belief is that that approach will maximise the opportunity of seeing major steps forward in delivering better outcomes for those with lobular breast cancer through research. I thank all hon. Members and you, Mrs Hobhouse, for your time today.

16:19

[John Milne]

I thank all hon. Members here present. Some really powerful points have been made. I particularly thank the Minister for his reply—I find it the most revealing reply of all that I have heard over the past year. Considering it is not even strictly his portfolio, I am very impressed. I hope that he or one of his colleagues will agree to follow up, because he has raised some very interesting points. I would like to consult with colleagues and follow up.

We are getting an understanding of the processes within Government for making these decisions. From the outside, it is very frustrating. I cannot tell when the Government are stalling or when they are really doing something. I mean that in general; I am not talking about this particular subject. I have had a number of meetings with completely different Departments this week, as it happens, with Ministers. It is very hard to tell when we are just being fobbed off and when we are actually on a path to a solution. I have been in politics only a couple of years; forgive my naivety.

I was very interested to hear what the Minister said and I felt he was more honest. I would really appreciate an opportunity to follow up either with him or his colleagues in the coming days.

Finally, I must pay tribute again to Dr Susan Michaelis for all her work. This day is of course the one-year anniversary of her death. I also pay tribute to all the lobular ladies, who are campaigning not just for themselves, but for everybody. This is a worldwide problem; it does not just affect us. I pay tribute to them all and I thank everyone today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

16:22

Sitting adjourned.