Rare Cancers Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, before beginning my speech, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly my involvement with Cambridge University Health Partners, Newmarket Strategy and Health Data Research UK, and in particular as a patron and adviser of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, of which more shortly. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, on bringing this Bill to this House, and Scott Arthur on introducing it in the other place.

This House has an excellent and long-standing record of promoting innovation in care and research in cancer. The noble Baroness has already talked about and referenced the campaigning of our sadly departed friend Baroness McDonagh; we can think back even further to the Medical Innovation Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, under not dissimilar circumstances.

Today, I pay tribute to, and encourage us to learn from, the example of another dear and sadly departed friend of this House: Baroness Jowell, or Tessa, as everyone knew her. Eight years ago this month, and only months before her own untimely death from glioblastoma—unfortunately, a not so rare cancer—Tessa inspired this House and this country to do more. She wanted us to give the word that both my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have already mentioned, which is hope—hope to patients and hope to their families. When she finished, it was an extremely emotional event. Those who were there will remember it. The House rose and rightly applauded, in itself a highly unusual response, but one that was absolutely deserved.

It was my privilege to respond on behalf of the Government that day. We were able to make a number of commitments to move forward—of course, in a very typical way, Tessa was talking not just about her cancer but all cancers. Immediately afterwards, therefore, we brought together all the parties in the brain cancer space—charities, NHS England, the NIHR and others—and the Brain Cancer Mission was born, in her name and in tribute to her. Whether or not those are rare cancers—GBM is sadly quite common, while others, such as medulloblastoma, are incredibly rare—they all suffer from the same kinds of problems when it comes to treatment and research.

The aims of the Brain Cancer Mission are to improve the quality and equity of care, to strengthen workforces, and to accelerate research, development and innovation. I am delighted to say that, thanks to the leadership of so many people—the charities that have been involved, the team and others—it is doing, and has done, amazing things. It has supported 32 hospitals to improve the quality of care, 14 centres of excellence in neuro-oncology for adults and 11 for children, a fellows programme that is supporting hundreds of researchers, an academy that has trained over 1,500 neuro-oncology staff of all kinds, and the largest dataset for neuro-oncology ever established. In conjunction with the charity Brain Tumour Research, it has created a novel therapeutic accelerator.

Sadly, though, there is so much more to do. Brain cancer is the biggest cancer cause of death for children, and indeed for adults under 40. Take GBM, for example: late diagnosis, a 12 to 18-month prognosis, and only 5% of people surviving more than five years. Those statistics are repeated over and over for all brain tumours and for all rare cancers, and the standard treatments have been unchanged for decades. That is why this Bill is so important.

I want to speak quickly to the Bill’s three clauses. The first deals with marketing authorisations, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already mentioned. The MHRA has made some progress through what it calls its international recognition procedure, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what is happening to make sure we can accelerate those innovative treatments through to patients.

Clause 2 talks about a duty to support research. Eight years ago, at the government Dispatch Box, I made a promise that we would spend £40 million of NIHR money on brain tumour research, but we have not yet. The NIHR has been a willing partner, but we are not yet supporting that research to the degree we should. Again, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that commitment will be met—and well beyond, and for other cancers, too.

Finally, Clause 3 deals with data. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, introduced a debate on this subject some years ago—in itself, it is a whole other subject that we could talk about. However, I strongly commend the clause, as it reflects the recommendations that were made in my own review of clinical trials. We need to go further—patients would be amazed to find out that their data is not being used to find trials for them. That is where the public is, and the law needs to catch up.

I end by again thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, for introducing the Bill, and reminding the House that Tessa invited us to approach the fight against cancer not with fear but with courage and compassion. That is what this Bill exemplifies.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take one minute of the House’s time? I commend what was just said by the noble Lord, whom I was pleased to work with many years ago, when he was the Minister. I am very pleased that he recalled the last contribution that my long-standing friend, Baroness Tessa Jowell, made in this House. I had the privilege of being the speaker immediately after her, which was one of the most difficult occasions of my life—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

I remind my noble friend that his name is not on the list to speak.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My apologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for my premature and ill-timed intervention earlier. After 10 years in the House, I need to go back and sharply revise my understanding of procedure. I am grateful to the House for the opportunity of being able to intervene.

I am emotionally moved today by two things: first, by two of my most long-standing and closest friends, a married couple, both of whom were diagnosed with different cancers in the autumn and are now supporting and caring for themselves, and, secondly, by the timely intervention from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, and reminder of the very powerful final speech of my long-standing friend, Baroness Tessa Jowell, in this House. I thank the noble Lord for his part in carrying that legacy forward and the important concentration on research.

I only wanted to do two things. The first was to congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliott on taking this forward and to hope that, in the next three months, we can get Royal Assent. The second was to add that rare cancers sometimes morph into being much less rare. The more we can do to examine those so-called rare cancers, the more likely we are to be able to intervene early and prevent developments which would otherwise lead to death. If we can do that, early understanding of their development and the ability to save people in the future will be much more likely.

I am very grateful for the mention of oesophageal cancer this morning. In the past oesophageal cancer was a rare cancer. People were sometimes wrongly diagnosed with stomach cancer, but it was relatively rare. Sadly, it is no longer. I recall my very good friend, Lord Bob Kerslake, who was from and remained in Sheffield. He died from oesophageal cancer not so long ago.

Today, we have the opportunity to turn the spotlight on those rare cancers that affect a very large number of people and, in some cases, will affect greater numbers in years to come as environmental, societal and dietary changes have their impact. I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to intervene.

Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Reports

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords—

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Would my noble friend accept—

[Noble Lords]

Bishop!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that all this will be clarified—but I will be delighted to change my reference. Indeed, this is extremely important, which is why we have a learning disability improvement standard to support NHS trusts, why each ICB has an executive lead on a learning disability and autism and why, among other things, we are rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training on learning disability and autism.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not sure who I was giving way to, but I am glad that God is on my side. Does my noble friend agree that, as part of that neighbourhood approach, two things should happen? The first is joined-up services, including good training for support workers where supported housing is concerned. Secondly, the major changes in abolishing NHS England should retain services at place level, rather than have the bureaucrats overseeing them.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with the points that my noble friend raises. Indeed, local provision is the responsibility of local trusts. I assure him that a huge part of our work is about improving care pathways and seeing people as a whole person. Part of the failing previously, I think, has been not to see those with learning disabilities and/or autism as whole people with a range of needs, just like anyone else, with those needs being specific to them. Certainly, moving from hospital to community under the 10-year plan will be a great assistance in that.

Safe Housing and Hospital Discharge

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord puts the case strongly for the process of home adaptations. As I have already mentioned, we have provided an immediate in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grants of some £86 million, which will enable people to adapt their homes exactly in the way that the Centre for Ageing Better describes, and I welcome its work. I should say that it is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they are supporting applicants through the process of home adaptations as much as possible. We are always looking at ways to improve the process and share good practice, so I welcome the contribution of the Centre for Ageing Better.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Will my noble friend confirm that very few integrated care boards are either integrated or about care? Much of the work that should be going on is going on with health and well-being boards, which are a combination at place level of the relevant local authority and the health service at the point where delivery takes place.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend has given me an invitation to agree with him. As he knows, it would be quite inappropriate to suggest that integrated care boards are not integrated or about care—that is their focus—but I appreciate his view on the matter. I do agree with him that much good work is done on the health and well-being boards. This all says to me that local decision-making, and local provision for local populations with their particular dimensions and demands, is the best way forward. My final point on this question is that local systems have to agree plans to achieve more timely and effective discharge from hospital, and to work with local authorities to develop those plans.

Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL]

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and I congratulate him on bringing this Bill forward. Its antecedents were in the previous Parliament, in the House of Commons. I commend the speech that he has just delivered; I did not disagree with a single word of it.

I start by paying tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom, who is viewing our debate this morning from, I think, the Throne steps. I was not sure whether I should call it the Throne or not—but she was certainly the queen of the review and the Start for Life initiative. I played my part in discussions with Dame Andrea, and I see the initiative as a valuable starting point for rebuilding the Sure Start initiative, for which I was partly responsible. I see the Start for Life initiative, and all the elements spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, as the granddaughter of Sure Start—and, as with all granddaughters, we want it to grow into adult life and be able to provide the range of services and comprehensive approach which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spelled out.

Information and guidance are a no-brainer; it is obvious that people need that from the time when they become pregnant all the way through those early two years that are so important, as we acknowledge. This is acknowledged and supported by parties of all persuasions. I noticed that the new Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay put a Question down very quickly on this issue. I also noticed that his dog got a lot more publicity than mine, for which my dog is deeply resentful.

The Bill takes a step forward, because it requires co-ordination and mapping of what is available at local level, and it requires thinking about how you reach people, particularly those hard to reach, in that early period. When Tessa Jowell and I, among others, were responsible for developing Sure Start, we discovered that the crucial element, which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned at the end of his speech, was the outreach to community and the strength of community. I happen still to be a communitarian and I believe that it is not just about the professional delivery of services, critical as that is—the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spelled out a whole range of professional services that should be involved—but actually should be seen as growing the strength and social capital of the community to surround and support families of whatever persuasion and size.

It seems to me also that, in providing that information, we highlight the inadequacies of what is already available. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and her Ministers are deeply committed to developing and building on Start for Life in terms of getting the resources over the years ahead to be able to provide comprehensive support, childcare and nursery education. There is a commitment from the new Government to developing that with primary schools so that continuity and support are available, seeing this on a timeline and a continuum, rather than as a one-off. If we can get the information, guidance and important support immediately available, it will help families to flourish and overcome the gross inequality that we see in this country and elsewhere, in terms of that start for babies.

The problem is, of course, that even with the resource for the limited number of hubs we are covering only part of England. It will be critical that we extend this right across the country and that, in mapping the available resources, public, private and voluntary, in an area, we can highlight what the need is and resource it in due course, despite the miserabilist picture at the moment. I should not say things like that, should I?

I want to put it on record that getting information, advice and support to the most vulnerable and more widely is not easy. Most parents do not access local authority websites; they do not even know about them. From the moment when a mother touches services when she discovers that she is pregnant, and the support services click in, that information and advice should be readily available—and, with consent, overcome data protection problems. Furthermore, we need to use new ways of reaching people as we have not done in the past. I am working with the University of Sheffield on this; it has an action research project using smartphones to reach families—because even the poorest families these days tend to have a smartphone—to provide direct advice by text and WhatsApp to those families, for them to be able to reach advice and support very quickly at the time they need it.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, was right to spell out the real challenges and pressures that exist on a new family and the dangers of underestimating the mental health problems. By such immediate access to advice, we can add to the multiplicity of commitments that would be available at local level if we managed to develop the services that this Bill would allow the local authority to highlight.

We have a long way to go and we know that there is a massive shortage of provision and that the workforce challenges are equally enormous in terms of childcare and nursery education provision, but we need to put them all together. If we do that, and the information is readily at hand, it will be possible to intervene and offer that help at the time when it is needed most.

We all know how to develop a child long after we have failed to do it really well—I speak as a father, and it was very important that the issue of fathers was mentioned. It is partly about overcoming child poverty, by the way. People in the debate about child poverty seem to forget that there should be a father as well as a mother available, and it is their duty and responsibility to contribute to the well-being of the child in all kinds of ways, including monetarily. So this is about fathers as well as mothers and it is about grandparents and support from the wider family—but it is also about ensuring that we connect with the community.

I commend this small but important contribution to a wider debate about how we get this right and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his initiative.

Health: RSV Immunisation

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend is quite right. If we take the shingles one, we see quite a disparity. The 70 to 75 element of the programme has a 74% take- up while the 65-plus element has only a 41% take-up—so there is a huge difference. We are starting to collect the data so that we can understand those disparities and then, as I mentioned in answer to the previous question, make sure that we have an action plan to address those groups.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ritchie on her tenacity and declare a selfish interest in that I have had this wretched virus two winters running. I will be able to buy the vaccine later this year if it is not available otherwise, but millions of people, including those supporting infants, will not. That is a disgrace, is it not?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I say, we are looking to have an infant programme. It is vital in the first few weeks for babies, which is why we are doing this whole plan, thanks to the pressure and the medical evidence. I echo what has been said about the relentless campaign for it all by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. We have got a tender in place. The intention is that we will be rolling it out from the autumn. I repeat that there is only one other public vaccination programme on this so far, in Galicia in Spain, so we really are at the forefront of this programme.

Adult Social Care: Challenge Procedures

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, this goes to the point about the massive increase we have put in place of £7.5 billion. I have not heard of but would be pleased to hear about any plans on the other side of the House to increase that funding, since £7.5 billion is a very large figure—a 20% increase. Clearly, we will continue to review whether more is needed; we have put in increases each year. The importance of ensuring social care provision is completely understood.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify his last answer? In replying to me on a previous occasion, he conceded that a very substantial part of the money he has just announced is from local authority council tax. Can he confirm that?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, absolutely; a large part of it is from central government funding and a large part is from local authority funding, given local authorities’ ability to use a precept and increase council tax. Of the 153 local authorities, 151 have taken that opportunity to increase the council tax.

Adult Social Care

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I think we agree that, where care can be considered and put in place in the community, that has to be the best place to do it. These funds are not just limited to care homes. The whole reason that they are allocated through local authorities is that it allows them to put the money where it is most needed in their local area. I have to say at this point that, despite all the issues we talk about, 89% of people are satisfied with the care they receive and 64% or so are very or extremely satisfied. In the context of all this, we have to recognise that the numbers are showing us that this is a service that people are satisfied with.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, in following up the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, perhaps the Minister could outline to us the ratio of spend over the next two years in relation to what is being raised from council tax and what is actually coming from the Exchequer.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Of the £2.8 billion increase next year, £1 billion is coming through the grant, with the other £1.8 billion available for the local authorities. In 2024-25, of that £4.7 billion, £1.7 billion is coming through the central grant.

NHS: Backlogs

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Thank you. I am sure the whole House will agree the need for efficiencies to make sure every pound is well spent. I have a little knowledge in the DWP space. Although it falls outside my responsibilities now, I was the lead NED there and I know that the team worked very hard during the pandemic to make sure that universal credit reached people quickly, and as a result they did not proceed with as many checks as they would do normally. It was deliberate policy to make sure money was paid quickly to those who needed it. At the same time, they absolutely understand that they need now to get on top of it and it is key to their action because, as my noble friend says, the more money we can free up in other departments, the more we can focus it on the front line where we really need it.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord is new in post and the Secretary of State is sort of new, having been in and out and then back again. But the backlog in repairs is mirrored by the exponential increase in waiting lists. Has this something to do with the atrophy that now exists in the health service due to the changes brought in by Matt Hancock, which have led not to the integration of services but the integration of bureaucracy?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I can assure the noble Lord that bureaucracy is not the aim of the game and that getting money to the front line is the priority. We have record levels of investment in this area. We are currently devoting about 12% of GDP to health spending, which sits alongside the highest in the world. That is not to say we do not have to make sure every penny of that is spent effectively and, where possible, on the front line rather than on back office and bureaucracy.

Covid-19: Aligning UK and Foreign Entry and Return Requirements

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Blunkett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the governments of countries with (1) low levels of COVID-19 infections, and (2) a traditionally high number of visitors from the United Kingdom, to seek to align the requirements for (a) vaccination, and (b) testing on entry and return.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I hope for the last time virtually, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my declaration on the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are working with a range of international partners to ensure a safe return to international travel while managing public health risks. We are taking a phased approach to amending requirements for passengers fully vaccinated through the UK programme and exploring plans to remove quarantine for non-UK residents arriving from amber countries from later this summer. The purpose of our inbound travel—[Inaudible]—while ensuring that our route out of the international travel restrictions is sustainable.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, at home and abroad, freedom day is in danger of turning into confusion day. Surely people should not be punished in any way for wanting, for business or for pleasure, to leave and return to our country freely. Clarity, consistency and some sort of understanding of the impact on our foreign relations would surely not only help but save our aviation and travel industry. Would the Minister agree that discussion with our friends could have led to an understanding of the constitution of the French Fifth Republic and avoided the need to invent amber-plus, thereby enabling us to be able to treat the French as they would treat us, given that our infection levels are pretty much at amber-plus?

[Lord Bethell (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that we should be utterly committed to the route to sustainable, open borders. However, we cannot hide from the threat of infection from abroad. That infection comes from higher rates from abroad—the positivity rates of some countries have been in the high teens—but also the threat of variants of concern, particularly the vaccine-evading beta variant, which is highly prevalent in some countries, including, increasingly, France.

Health: Dementia

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very touching and constructive point, because social engagement and involvement in the community keep older people sharp and their brains engaged and help stave off the ravages of age and the diminution of mental faculties. We all have a role to play in supporting the elderly and those with mental challenges. My noble friend is entirely right to call on the entire community to step up to that role.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I draw attention to my declaration in the register as a dementia champion. The corollary of the question that has just been put is that reduced contact, reduced socialisation and reduced activity accelerate the onset of dementia. Of course, that has been happening over the past 16 months. Will the Minister commit to investing in the voluntary and charitable sector in this area so that it too can play its part in supporting families and helping it to reaccelerate back into social action?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I accept the noble Lord’s point. The corollary is right: there are those who have not had the engagement they once had, and it is fair to assume that that has accelerated their decline. The role of charities and communities in trying to provide that back-up support is critical. That is why we have provided £515,000 to the Alzheimer’s Society to support its Dementia Connect programme.