Brain Tumours

Debate between Helen Jones and Julian Lewis

Monday 18th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

Again, we were given various reasons when we took evidence, and we want the Government to consider the matter carefully. There is no doubt that if we are to improve scanning procedures, we must accept that a number of scans will come back clear. The issue is, what proportion that comes back with no tumour shown is acceptable? Surely it is better to invest in a scan than to let a tumour grow, because later treatment is much more difficult, complex and costly. We want more people to have access to scanning.

Early diagnosis is important, but it will not solve the problem without more research. Despite the excellent scientists and clinicians who gave evidence to the Committee, there is no doubt that they are working in an underfunded system. The Government response to the petition said that about 1.5% of cancer spending is devoted to brain tumours, but that includes fundamental research and non-site-specific research.

The National Cancer Research Institute told us in evidence that some non-site-specific research undoubtedly benefits brain tumour research, but it was unable to put a figure on that. We heard from Professor Tracy Warr of the brain tumour research centre at the University of Wolverhampton that brain tumours are less likely than other cancers to benefit from non-site-specific research because of their complexity and location, and the blood-brain barrier, which means that drugs that work in the bloodstream do not transfer to the brain. That is an unscientific explanation, but I am sure hon. Members will know what I mean.

We found that spending records are very unclear. The Government’s own records are not clear. The National Cancer Research Institute was unhelpful when trying to find out exactly how much of the spending benefited research into brain tumours and there is no central record of spending by people who are not partners with the National Cancer Research Institute. There is no doubt that spending is low. The only figure that we can be certain of is the 3.3% of spending on site-specific research, which is about £7.7 million a year. At that rate of progress, it is estimated that it would take 100 years for the outcome for brain tumours to be as good as for many other cancers.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the assessment of my constituent, Mrs Alison Hutchman, who has been living with what she calls “this devastating disease” for the last six years, about that estimated time of 100 years? Why is this terrible disease so low down the priority order?

I saw the recent death of my friend, Richard Webster, at the age of only 50, from a brain tumour, despite the loving care of his family and his long-term partner and later husband, Jamie Norton. I know only too well, as only someone who has seen it can know, what is entailed when this disease strikes.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I agree with his constituent. Brain tumours are perceived to be rare, although my argument is that they are not as rare as we think and the number of life years lost and the burden of the disease mean they have to be tackled. We know there is a correlation between the amount of money spent and survival rates in cancer. Survival rates for those with brain tumours went up by only 7.5% between 1970 and 2015. For cancer overall, they have doubled.

Defamation Law

Debate between Helen Jones and Julian Lewis

Thursday 15th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights an interesting suggestion by the Select Committee, but the issue that we must grapple with is whether solicitors’ firms would be prepared to take cases in those circumstances. That is why I welcome the Minister’s commitment to publishing a draft Bill, and to having pre-legislative scrutiny of the issue. I do not believe that there is a debate between us about what we want to achieve, but there is and must be a debate about how we achieve it. The law in this area, as has been said many times, is extremely complex and difficult, so it is right that the House examines it in detail, goes through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—the previous Government also intended to do that—and comes to a proper conclusion.

We certainly want to protect the media’s right to publish articles that are in the public interest—we all know that that is slightly different from being interesting to the public—and we all want to protect the right of scientists to engage in proper scientific debate and discussion. That is vital. It is also important that people can protect themselves from malicious and untrue attacks. I was pleased to hear the Minister and others accept that we must get the balance right.

[Dr Lewis]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady’s measured approach. On a couple of occasions when I was defamed, I knew that the sources were malicious opponents, and in a recent case a political opponent at a general election. Such people do not have the guts to publish the libel; they go to a newspaper, which then publishes it, and the malicious source is protected by the newspaper, which says that it must guard its sources and never reveal them. Before we lose too much sleep over the plight of newspapers when attacking individuals’ reputations, let us remember that, to some extent, they bring much of it on themselves by happily recycling malicious falsehoods put forward by people who do not have the guts to say it for themselves.

[Helen Jones]

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has far more personal experience of defamation actions than me. It is important to stress that it is fundamental to free society that we protect the rights of investigative journalists to publish comments that may be uncomfortable for people and which they may not want published, but which it is in the public interest to publish. At the same time, we must protect individuals from malicious and untrue attacks. How we engage with the draft Bill when the Government publish it will be a test of the House’s seriousness. It is true—we have experience of this—that pre-legislative scrutiny improves legislation. This time, we have a chance to get the laws on defamation right for a generation.

Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and the various Select Committees that have looked at this subject have made valuable contributions, and I look forward to discussing the issue further. The House should engage in that complex process and draw on the valuable experience that is provided by a number of hon. Members, either through the Committee or, as was unfortunately the case for the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), through personal experience. I am sure that there is good will in all parts of the House to ensure that the legislation works.