Prostate Cancer Screening

Debate between Mark Francois and John Lamont

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point about the importance of testing centres being available in rural areas, and about how community-based testing centres link into the NHS and the research that is being carried out.

There remains significant disagreement about the scale of harm. The UK National Screening Committee estimates that for every 1,000 men offered screening, up to 20 could be overdiagnosed, while around two lives are extended. Analysis by Prostate Cancer Research of more contemporary, MRI-led studies estimates that, roughly, for every two lives saved, three men are overdiagnosed. The updated Cochrane review published in May found that for every 1,000 men screened, PSA-based screening is likely to reduce prostate cancer mortality by around two deaths, while questions about overdiagnosis and treatment-related harms remain.

When I met researchers from the Transform team, they highlighted an important nuance: MRI has reduced unnecessary biopsies, but it has not yet been shown that those diagnostic advances sufficiently reduce overtreatment. Questions also remain about how organised screening would interact with the PSA testing that is already taking place, and about screening black men, with the UK NSC saying it has insufficient evidence to determine

“whether screening would cause more good than harm.”

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I declare an interest: my wife, Olivia, works as a radiographer in the national health service. The thrust of the Government information given to all our constituents is about catching cancer as early as possible; part of the dilemma is that the Government position on prostate cancer screening seems to run against that. Over the weekend, I had a dozen emails from constituents who either have had prostate cancer or have family members who have been touched by it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that dichotomy, the Government should perhaps play it a little safe and be prepared to look at this again?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. My ask is that the Government continue their engagement, but also keep assessing the evidence and information coming forward, so that patients are given the best possible opportunity for survival.

The uncertainty around screening matters the most for black men, as one in four will develop prostate cancer and they are around twice as likely to die from it, but rather than being offered screening, they are being invited to take part in a trial. Transform has received up to a further £18 million to directly test several relevant questions, and to ensure that if stage 1 of the project is successful, all eligible black men aged between 45 and 74 will be invited to stage 2. Researchers told me that useful stage 1 evidence should be available before the long-term trial is complete, and will be fed back to the UK NSC.

As the MP for the Scottish Borders, I want to highlight Scotland’s experience. The Scottish Prostate Cancer Initiative, supported by Sir Chris Hoy, Sir Tom Hunter, Professor Sir Chris Evans and Kenny Logan, aims to offer free PSA tests to 25,000 men aged 40 to 80 during 2026. Sir Chris described the initiative as

“a major step forward for prostate cancer testing.”

In May, 313 men were tested in Hawick and 515 men were tested in Galashiels, meaning that across two days 828 men in my constituency were tested. The initiative is not an NHS screening programme, but its community-based model may offer useful lessons about access, uptake and reaching men who might otherwise be missed. That matters, because inequalities remain stark. Analysis from the NHS, National Services Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support found that men in the most deprived areas had a 98% higher risk of death from prostate cancer than those in the least deprived areas.

I hope the Minister can address several points. First, will she commit to independent expert scrutiny of the UK NSC modelling, and to publish the findings and the Committee’s response in full? Secondly, as stage 1 of Transform produces significant new evidence, particularly on the screening of black men, will the Government ask the UK NSC to review its recommendation? Thirdly, how will the NHS proactively identify eligible BRCA2 carriers, particularly men whose genetic risk is not already known?

Fourthly, what lessons on improving access to testing can be drawn from community-based initiatives in Scotland? Fifthly, what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments to ensure that a man’s access to screening does not depend on which side of the border he lives on? Finally, what will the Government do to make sure that the many men who fall outside the programme know they can ask their GP for a PSA test and receive clear, balanced information when they do?

Call for General Election

Debate between Mark Francois and John Lamont

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only is it something that was not discussed before the election, it is something that there is no public support for. But in rural communities, such as those in the constituencies that both my hon. Friend and I represent, there is a real issue with connectivity and how it will work in practice. People may be deprived of the ability to access vital public services as a consequence, if we believe the things that some Labour MPs are saying that they hope this ID system will achieve.

This Government have been blown off course, with multiple U-turns on income tax, WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—compensation, welfare reform and the long overdue inquiry into grooming gangs—the list grows longer by the day. This Government are riddled with chaos and scandal, with Ministers resigning over fraud, corruption allegations, tax issues and ethical failures, right up to a Prime Minister who claims excessive freebies. Britain deserves better.

From my emails, surgeries and doorstep conversations, I know that colleagues will recognise the same mood across the country: disappointment, anger and a profound sense of betrayal—the word “betrayal” comes up time and again. Labour Members should reflect carefully on why so many people feel that way. The Government’s response to this petition was to dismiss it, and to dismiss the voices of the more than 1 million people who signed it. Those concerned should not be brushed aside simply because parliamentary mechanisms do not allow this House to act for them directly. This Government are giving the impression that they believe themselves to be above public opinion. The Opposition will not allow that.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, seven of the top 10 constituencies in terms of numbers of people who have signed the petition are in Essex, and they include my own constituency. That is how unpopular Labour is in Essex. Does he think that might have anything to do with why Labour councillors want to cancel the local elections in Essex in May? Or is that just an amazing coincidence?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This time last year, we had a petition on a similar subject, which millions of people signed, and I think Essex was also at the top of the league table for numbers of signatures. I am a member of the Petitions Committee, which is why I am presenting the petition on behalf of the Committee—a few other members of the Committee are here today. We deal with petitions every single week, but very rarely do we see petitions that attract this level of support and public participation, such is the sense of anger and betrayal felt by people out there in the country.

As I was saying, the Conservatives will continue to challenge and force reversals of damaging policies, just as we did on the winter fuel payment, the family farm tax and the grooming gangs inquiry. Labour promised to be different, but instead it has presided over a catalogue of broken promises, scandals and policy announcements that no one supports.