Cancer Outcomes in the UK

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this debate and for introducing it so powerfully in his usual inimitable fashion. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, as a former patient and as someone married to a current patient.

We all recognise the ambition behind the National Cancer Plan for England. It sets out a vision of earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and improved survival—goals that command universal support across this House. But ambition, however welcome, is not the same as delivery, and it is on delivery that this plan invites scrutiny.

First, on early diagnosis, the plan rightly emphasises catching cancer sooner, when outcomes are far better. The new 28-day faster diagnosis standard is a meaningful step forward and the UK is improving five-year survival rates across a range of cancers, with particularly strong performance in breast and some children’s cancers. Yet the plan leans heavily on expanding screening and awareness, without adequately addressing the capacity constraints already facing primary care and diagnostic services. General practitioners are overstretched and diagnostic hubs, though welcome and promising, remain unevenly distributed. Without a credible workforce strategy, radiologists, pathologists and specialist nurses, the aspiration of earlier diagnosis risks becoming little more than a slogan.

Secondly, on children’s cancer, we have seen important advocacy, including the Solving Kids’ Cancer response to the 10-year plan, which rightly highlights that childhood cancers are biologically distinct and require tailored approaches. Yet the national plan does not fully reflect that specificity. Children’s cancer should be treated as a dedicated priority, not simply folded into a general cancer narrative. Survival rates for some paediatric cancers have improved, but progress has stalled in others, particularly rare and aggressive forms. Families still face fragmented pathways, limited access to trials and inconsistent genomic testing. If we are serious about improving outcomes, this requires dedicated investment, co-ordinated research infrastructure and guaranteed access to specialist centres and innovative therapies.

On specialist centres, the plan must not blur the distinction between general cancer care and specialist excellence. The Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research remain among the world’s leading cancer institutions, with the Marsden identified as one of the top five cancer centres globally for research impact and the country’s only specialist NIHR biomedical research centre for cancer. That matters because a serious national cancer strategy must support both broad improvement across the NHS and world-leading specialist research that drives the next generation of treatments. We should not ask our flagship centres to carry international responsibility without giving them the sustained support that they need.

Thirdly, the plan speaks of reducing waiting times and meeting treatment targets. But we must be candid: the NHS has struggled to meet its existing cancer waiting time standards for several years. Simply restating targets does not make them achievable. What is missing is a clear funded pathway to recovery, one that accounts for workforce shortages, ageing equipment and the persistent backlog exacerbated by the pandemic. Targets without tools will not deliver results.

Fourthly, as many have mentioned, there is the question of inequality. Cancer outcomes in England vary significantly by geography, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. The plan acknowledges these disparities, but its remedies remain broad and underspecified. We hear of targeted interventions and community engagement, yet there is little detail on how these resources will be shifted to the areas of greatest need or how success will be measured. Without a sharper focus and accountability, inequality risks being noted but not narrowed.

Fifthly, on innovation and infrastructure, particularly the overlooked issue of medical radioisotopes, modern cancer care increasingly depends on nuclear medicine, both for diagnostics and targeted therapies, yet the UK remains heavily reliant on international supply chains for key medical radioisotopes, which are vulnerable to disruption. A serious national cancer plan should address this strategic gap. Developing a domestic supply, whether through research, reactors, cyclotrons or alternative production methods is not merely an industrial question but a matter of clinical resilience and patient safety.

We have a plan, project ARTHUR, to site a reactor at the old Trawsfynydd site in north-west Wales, supported by the Welsh Government and the local skilled population. I urge the Minister to look seriously at this plan. Without secure access to these materials, some of the very innovations that the plan champions cannot be reliably delivered.

Sixthly, on patient experience, the plan speaks of holistic care, mental health support, rehabilitation and survivorship, and this is welcome. Maggie’s, the independent charity that I know well, helps to provide this support across the country in its 24 centres sited alongside hospitals. Yet many patients today still report fragmented care, poor communication and insufficient support after treatment ends. These are not peripheral concerns; they are central to outcomes and quality of life. A truly patient-centred plan would embed these elements as core standards, not optional extras.

Finally, on accountability, the plan sets out ambitions over the coming years, but it lacks clear milestones and transparent reporting mechanisms. Parliament and the public must be able to track progress in real time to understand not only what is promised but what is delivered. Without this, there is the risk that the plan will become another well-intentioned document that fades from view.

None of this is to dismiss the importance of having a national cancer plan. On the contrary, it is precisely because cancer care is so vital that we must hold such plans to the highest standard. We need a strategy that is not only ambitious but credible, not only comprehensive but deliverable, and not only forward-looking but grounded in the realities of today’s NHS. If this plan is to succeed, it must be strengthened with a robust workforce strategy and a serious commitment to children’s cancer; securing domestic capabilities in critical technologies, such as radioisotopes; realistic funding; targeted action on inequality; equitable access to innovation; and clear mechanisms for accountability. Without these, we risk raising expectations that cannot be met, and that is something that neither patients nor clinicians can afford. The challenge before us, as ever, is not to write plans but to make them work.