Westminster Hall

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 11 June 2026

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

Clean Power by 2030

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

Scottish Affairs committee

Select Committee statement

13:30

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

We begin with the Select Committee statement. Mr Angus MacDonald will speak on the publication of the first report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, “Clean Power by 2023: A fair deal for Scotland?” for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement—questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one each—and call Mr MacDonald to respond to them in turn.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording me the opportunity to make a statement on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s first report of the Session, on the Government’s clean power 2030 mission. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Committee.

This is the Committee’s second report on our inquiry into Great British Energy and the net zero transition. We launched the inquiry in November 2024, and it has been our longest-running piece of work to date. We have received more than 50 pieces of written evidence, held 11 oral evidence sessions and carried out numerous visits, both in Scotland and internationally. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with the inquiry. Last autumn, we published an interim report for the inquiry on the future of North sea oil and gas, and I commend that report to all hon. Members.

The report before us today—our second and final report for this inquiry—explores a wide range of issues. We cover the achievability of the clean power by 2030 mission, the role of GB Energy in delivering it, the urgent need for grid upgrades, and the community ownership of clean power. However, I will focus in my brief remarks on the issue of community benefits.

Community benefits are key to ensuring the fairness of the Government’s clean power mission, particularly for the communities of the highlands and islands, many of which I represent in my Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire constituency. It was declared that Scotland had the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of renewables, and there has been massive investment in onshore wind. However, those wind farm developments are seldom owned locally and offer few local jobs. In 2024, only £7 million of community benefit was generated in the highlands, and less than £30 million across Scotland, from that billion-pound industry. That was a disappointing outcome from a potentially transformative opportunity.

Throughout our inquiry, we had a clear consensus that the communities in Scotland that shoulder the greatest impact of the energy transition by hosting renewable energy infrastructure must also share in its benefits. As one of our expert witnesses put it, highland communities see that

“the turbines are generating lots of revenue for somebody but not for them.”

That presents an acute problem of fairness. The communities across Scotland that host industrial-scale renewable infrastructure in their backyards are the very same communities that pay among the highest prices for energy. Although fuel poverty rates across the UK cannot be directly compared, it is also clear that those same communities are enduring among the highest levels of fuel poverty. Indeed, many will be among the 34% of Scottish households that are classified as fuel poor while looking on at the massive wind turbines generating renewable electricity nearby—that cannot be just.

As our report highlights, that disconnect is a key driver of the sense of unfairness felt by communities across rural Scotland. It is for that reason that our report welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to introduce a mandatory community benefit scheme for new-generation infrastructure. The scheme, which is expected to be introduced by the end of 2027 at the earliest, could be key to ensuring that Scotland’s rural communities are adequately compensated for the disadvantages that come with enabling the whole of the UK to meet the Government’s clean power mission. However, that raises the thorny issue of what fair compensation looks like.

As the report highlights, the Scottish Government were widely regarded as leaders in this area. In 2015, they introduced voluntary community benefits guidance for onshore renewable developers, which recommended community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt, with inflationary increases. They have recently proposed increasing that to £6,000. However, the UK Government have, in their policy paper on how their mandatory scheme will work, proposed a benchmark contribution of only £5,000 per megawatt. Our report finds that that sum is insufficient and does not reflect fair compensation for rural Scotland. A £5,000 contribution may have been an appropriate amount in 2015, when the Scottish Government adopted it, but it is now worth around 40% less in real terms.

Our report makes it clear that the UK Government must be bolder. The Committee recommends that a figure in the region of £10,000 to £12,000 per megawatt would be more appropriate. The report also calls on the Government to consider carefully the Highland council’s view that £12,500, the upper end of that scale, is a fair figure. That proposal reflects the Highland council’s first-hand experience of supporting communities that bear the brunt of clean energy development.

The Committee’s report also highlights that, no matter what figure the Government adopt, it is equally important that a mechanism is included to maintain that value over time—otherwise, Scotland’s communities will eventually find themselves short-changed as the real-terms value of the figure is eroded. Financial payments will be an essential part of a fair deal for Scotland, but they are not the whole story.

Our report makes it clear that meaningful community benefit extends beyond financial payments, and that housing availability, access to skills training and the creation of long-term local jobs are just as important. If delivered successfully, the influx of vast amounts of renewable energy could provide an opportunity to leave a transformative legacy of housing, skills and quality employment. That would be especially valuable for communities in remote rural Scotland, which have seen little private or public sector investment.

The Committee calls on the Government to seize this opportunity and ensure that their mandatory community benefit scheme is significant enough to reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland’s rural communities. Our report recommends one specific way in which the Government could achieve that: their scheme should include a requirement on energy companies building projects in rural areas to construct legacy worker accommodation to a standard suitable for permanent community housing, rather than temporary modular buildings. That would go some way towards addressing the acute housing shortage in the highlands, which requires an extra 24,000 homes to meet the demand of the next decade, according to Highland council.

With that, I will conclude my statement. The Scottish Affairs Committee looks forward to the Government’s response, which I hope will reflect serious consideration of our recommendations on delivering a fair deal for rural communities across Scotland.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called to ask a question.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

I call Patricia Ferguon.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my Committee colleague for the way in which he presented the Committee’s findings and recommendations. It was a very interesting piece of work. One issue that came up time and again was curtailment costs—the payments made to electricity producers when turbines are not operational. Does he agree that the changes being made to the grid must happen as quickly as possible? One benefit would be a reduction in the curtailment costs, which would help bill payers across the country.

[Mr MacDonald]

I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee—she was the driving force behind the report. The curtailment costs demonstrate quite how meagre the community benefits are. I do not have the curtailment cost figures to hand, but hundreds of millions of pounds are often being paid to utilities and infrastructure funds that own the wind farms but are not local—they are neither highlands-based nor Scotland-based. Basically, we are rewarding people for something they have not done to help the area. I could not agree more that the transmission lines, and the speed of getting them in, are crucial.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Scottish Affairs Committee for the report and the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for outlining the factual case. I also thank hon. Members who commit their time and energy to coming forward with ideas—there are many ideas in the report. Am I allowed to ask two questions, Mrs Barker?

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Just one, I am afraid.

[Jim Shannon]

I will try to combine two issues in one question, then—my apologies for being overambitious. On green energy issues, does the Committee intend to share its ideas with the Northern Ireland Assembly? In Northern Ireland, green energy is not as advanced as in Scotland, and we are looking towards the energy connection between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Did the Committee consider that connection, and if not, will it do so at some point in the future?

[Mr MacDonald]

That is a bit of a curveball. That is not something I know anything about. If the Minister is better informed, maybe he can answer.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I was interested to hear the hon. Member say that the Scottish Government have proposed increasing the recommended voluntary community benefit for onshore wind projects to £6,000 per megawatt. That seems a derisory uplift given that, as he pointed out, it was £5,000 per megawatt in 2015—an uplift of only £1,000 after 11 years. Campaigners and local authorities across Scotland suggest that the figure of £12,500 per megawatt would be more appropriate. How should the UK Government respond to that? Is the Committee suggesting that the UK Government intervene, perhaps with a legal mandate to introduce a fairer and more realistic community benefit figure?

[Mr MacDonald]

It would have been helpful if the Conservative Government had made it mandatory 12 years ago, but they did not. Although I applaud the Scottish Government for doing so, they should have increased the benefit every year, rather than leaving it at £5,000. The £6,000 figure that they have now come up is completely ridiculous, because, with inflationary increases, the 2015 contract figure should be £8,500, so they have effectively reduced the community benefit. Two years ago, I wrote to the Scottish Energy Minister and the First Minister to make my case. Indeed, I met the Energy Minister about it. I am afraid that, by making it £6,000, they have taken the easy option.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mrs Barker. For clarification, I asked the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about the interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but as the Minister is in the Chamber, perhaps he might answer.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to write to Mr Shannon?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

indicated assent.

13:44

Sitting suspended.

Backbench Business

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

13:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered freedom of religion or belief in Sudan.

It is a real pleasure to introduce this debate, which is one that I have sought for some time. It is also a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker—we have been friends for so many years in this House, and I appreciate that. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in his place, although he is not who I was told would be here. It is in no way a disappointment; it is just that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) happened to tell me, “I’ll see you on Thursday”, but there we are.

It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who I spoke to beforehand; we have had a good friendship in this House. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), always turns up at my debates—I am not sure whether that is because he is made to or because he has a deep interest in them, but knowing him, I am going for the latter reason.

Why is this debate important? Sudan has been in my heart—and in all our hearts, I think—for a long time. There are many other things that people could be doing. We are well aware of the date of the Makerfield by-election, and I know people are committing themselves to that, which I understand. The shadow Minister told me that some Members who are speaking in the debate in the main Chamber on the legacy of Jo Cox also wanted to be here. There are others who also wished to participate but are in the Chamber.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time to discuss the severe violations of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will bring to this debate his personal experience—I did not know until a short time ago that he was in Sudan in 2022—and his knowledge of that time there and some of the things that have happened since.

It burdens my soul when terrible persecution and unspeakable violence take place against my brothers and sisters in the Lord—Christians—and those of other faiths. Muslims have not been outside the abuse, attacks and violence. Terrorist groups are committed to destroying Sudan, and they do not seem to worry a bit about what happens.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have watched with great concern as Sudan has descended into the largest current humanitarian crisis on earth. The number of people displaced and murdered, and the level of abuse that takes place against women and young girls, are horrendous. Those things really quite annoy me, and they annoy us all. I cannot quite understand why anybody wants to be so evil, wicked and depraved against women and children. It is inconceivable; my mind cannot take it in.

Since April 2023, more than 150,000 people are estimated to have been killed—some figures are even above that—and up to 15 million people have been displaced from their homes. Famine has taken hold in the Zamzam displacement camp, and millions more face hunger, fear and uncertainty every day of their lives. Sudan is fourth in the world watch list—that is like the premier league, but fourth place in this premier league does not look good, as it is about atrocities, persecution, human rights abuses and other things taking place. The top four or five are the worst places in the world, including North Korea, China and parts of Russia.

In February, the United Nations fact-finding mission reported on the actions of the Rapid Support Forces around El Fasher. At that particular time, there were incredible reports filtering through of the murderous intent of the Rapid Support Forces and the hallmarks of genocide, particularly in the targeting of non-Arab communities, including the Fur and Zaghawa peoples. Those words should make every one of us stop and think: hallmarks of genocide—men, women and children killed because they happened to be Christians, Muslims or, as far as the Rapid Support Forces are concerned, the enemy.

The situation in Sudan is one of hatred, identity-based violence and impunity at its worst. In my lifetime, though to a much lesser degree, I have seen in Northern Ireland—you will be aware of this, Mrs Barker—how hatred is allowed to overcome basic humanity. I have always tried in my life to be circumspect about those things, to take in what happens while also looking at how we move on and bring society together. We have done that in Northern Ireland, but Sudan is nowhere near that point.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate for religious freedom right across the world, and his speech underlines that even further. Like him, I looked at the Open Doors world watch list, which said that Sudan is now the fourth worst place in the world to be a Christian. That is not just because of the war; it is because churches are being burned down and Christians are being forcibly converted, in addition to mosques being attacked and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe taking place right across that country.

I absolutely welcome the £146 million that the UK Government have released in humanitarian aid, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we are going to get a lasting solution to this crisis is if the UK uses every lever at its disposal—including its role as the official penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—to broker a ceasefire?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. We spoke beforehand in the Chamber to go over what he has just referred to. There is a key role to play. We are very fortunate to have the Minister in his place, and that the Government have given that £146 million of humanitarian aid. I suspect that it probably does not get to where it should—that is not the fault of the Government or the Minister—but there is a commitment from this Government and from our Minister on that.

In reference to the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), let me say that no cause, grievance or political objective can ever justify the targeting of civilians, the destruction of places of worship or the abuse of women and children. As I said earlier, the depravity of those carrying out those vile things against innocent people is inconceivable.

In Sudan, places that should be treated as sanctuaries are being treated with contempt and disregard. In June 2025, the Rapid Support Forces bombed the Sudanese Episcopal church, the African Inland church and the Roman Catholic church in El Fasher. Father Luka Jomo, a devoted parish priest, later died from his injuries. He was not from El Fasher, but his duty as a pastor and priest who reaches out to help people was to stay with them and remain there during the siege, serving a community that was predominantly Muslim. That is Christianity at work.

I would love to see a world in which we can all have different religions, if that is the way it is, but still stand up for each other. That is what we should do, and I believe Father Luka Jomo did exactly that in the most compassionate way, ultimately giving his life for the belief that he held. That speaks powerfully of his faith, courage and love for the people whom he served and ultimately died for.

Of course, this disregard for human life extends to people of all faiths. In September 2025, the Rapid Support Forces attacked a mosque near Abdul Shouk camp during dawn prayers, killing over 70 people. Those people were praying, at peace and in touch with their God, yet they were murdered. In Khartoum, the Pentecostal Church premises in El Haj Yousif, El Shegla, were destroyed by extremists and members of the Sudanese armed forces. I have probably destroyed some of those words with my Ulster Scots accent, never mind my interpretation, but I am trying to put on record my concern for all those places that I will probably never see, and all those people whom I will probably never meet in this world, but hopefully will meet in the next.

For those who flee, the nightmare often continues. There are reports of Christians—my brothers and sisters—who had fled from areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces being arrested and detained in areas controlled by the Sudanese armed forces. It seems to be not only the terrorist groups who show disregard for human life, but sometimes the Government troops as well.

In October 2024, military intelligence officials in Shendi reportedly arrested 26 Christian men from the Sudanese Church of Christ, accusing them of being affiliated with the Rapid Support Forces. These accusations do not appear to have been based on any evidence—because there is no evidence to prove them—but on suspicion, on ethnicity and on the locations those people had fled from. They just happened to come from an area that the Rapid Support Forces had chased them from, and then the officials said that they were from that group. It really is quite hard to believe.

There are also wider concerns about what has been called the “strange faces” policy, which is rather hard to understand. Under that policy, people who are perceived— I emphasise the word “perceived”; it is not fact—to belong to communities linked with one side or the other have been harassed, detained or accused of criminal offences, even though there is little or no evidence to prove that they are guilty of any of them. Christian communities have been affected, too; many of them come from the Nuba mountains and the people are of African ethnicity.

We must also confront the horrific reality of conflict-related sexual violence. Such violence is inconceivable; it is wicked, depraved and evil for anyone to take advantage of a woman or a young girl just because they are female. Women and girls have been raped, abducted and taken into sexual slavery; one young married woman had her young daughters taken away from her and—against their will, obviously—taken into sexual slavery. They were brought up in a good home, but what happened to them is depraved.

There are reports of men experiencing sexual violence in detention, as well. There are people of depravity in control of jails and in other positions of power who carry out their most depraved acts upon those whom they have a responsibility to look after. Survivors need medical care, social support and access to justice.

I have three or four asks of the Minister, and I must say that it really is a joy to see him here. His choice of words and his tone are calming; no matter how dark the statements that he makes in the main Chamber—and sometimes such statements are pretty dark—he develops a tone that perhaps calm us; it calms me, anyway. It is important that we can relate to a Minister who I believe has the heart for the stories that we are telling. We thank him for that.

On the resources that have been made available for work not only in South Sudan but for refugees in neighbouring countries, the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley referred in an intervention to £146 million in humanitarian aid, which covers some of the things that we are doing. But what about those who need medical help, those facing the trauma of depravities committed against them, the young children who are not being educated, because there are no teachers and no schools to teach in, or the neighbouring countries to which refugees have fled?

The treatment of women and girls by depraved men is reprehensible. We must intervene to support those who work in this area, not simply to help those who have been directly affected, but to train a generation to understand that rape and sexual violence are despicable, and that the actions of the past cannot be the actions of the future.

The United Kingdom has a particular responsibility because, to go back to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention once again, we are the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, and we have played a leading role on Sudan at the United Nations Human Rights Council. That gives us a duty to lead. I do not believe for one second that the Minister is not doing that, and I do not believe for one second that the Government are not doing that, but is there a better way of doing it? Can we encourage others to be, on paper, a penholder, as we are in the United Kingdom? Maybe there is a bigger role for the United States, the rest of Europe, those in the western world and those who have a heart for the people and compassion for those who are under pressure.

I think the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley must have read my three points; I did not show him my speech, but he ascertained what the issues were very quickly, and I congratulate him on that. I urge the Minister to press for an immediate ceasefire, safe humanitarian access, and the protection of civilians, churches, mosques and other places of worship. I ask the Minister and the Government to support the mandate of the United Nations fact-finding mission for the Sudan and to ensure that it is fully resourced and not watered down.

I am not here to criticise the Government for the moneys set aside for other countries across the world. We understand the financial pressures that are reducing those. In the debate in the main Chamber on the legacy of Jo Cox, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), referred to the Department for International Development and the reduction in development spending. DFID is the soft approach; the other approach is a military one, of course, but there are other ways to do it. We have been clear that we are happy to hear the Minister’s ideas about how we can protect civilians, churches, mosques and places of worship and how we can support the United Nations fact-finding mission for the Sudan. Once we have all the details from the fact-finding mission, what plan of action will we take forward to ensure that things get better?

I also ask the Government to press for the Darfur arms embargo to be extended across the whole of Sudan and for the mandate of the International Criminal Court investigation, currently focused on Darfur, to be extended to the whole country. I am a great believer—this is a personal thing, but I believe that there are many in this House who feel the same—that while people in this world may think they get away with certain things, there is a day coming in the next world when they will be held accountable. What I want in this world is for them to be accountable for their crimes, their depravities, their abuse of women and children, their murders and their killing. I want them to be brought before an International Criminal Court investigation. I would be deeply indebted to the Minister if he could give us some indication of what is happening in relation to the International Criminal Court investigation.

There must also be accountability for those outside Sudan who are fuelling the war. If other states are supplying arms, funds or political cover to either side, that must be called out; I will mention one shortly. The United Kingdom should not be afraid to use sanctions against those who enable atrocities, inside or outside Sudan—it does not matter where they are in the world— and hold them accountable. I am quite sure that our Government and our Minister will make that happen.

There is a country that many of us feel is involved in this conflict right up to its neck. Concerns have been raised about the alleged role of the United Arab Emirates in supporting the Rapid Support Forces. The United Arab Emirates has denied any wrongdoing. It is so holier than thou, or at least it tries to be—but no; its hands are dirty and bloody, and it is time for it to be held accountable. The allegations made are serious and simply cannot be ignored. If any external state is supplying arms, funds or logistical support to those committing atrocities, it must be held to account. There must be a time when the United Arab Emirates and whoever is involved in these activities are held accountable.

I referred to the campaign for the Premier League to raise concerns with Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour, who is also a senior political figure in the United Arab Emirates. Abdallah Idriss Abugarda, a survivor of the first Darfur genocide and leader of the Darfur Diaspora Association, has made the point that football is powerful. The first match of the world cup is tonight, and we are going to see the power of football over the next fortnight or three weeks. Well, here is an opportunity for the power of football to do something for the people, stopping the supply of arms, funds and logistical support. The owner of Manchester City should do his bit as well.

Football is powerful, and with power comes moral responsibility. It is not just about playing the magnificent game for 90 minutes plus extra time. Whether in sport, diplomacy or trade, no institution should turn away from credible concerns about atrocities. That is why accountability must not stop at Sudan’s borders. If we are serious about ending this war, we must look at not only those pulling the trigger, but those supplying funding and enabling the violence.

If the Minister does not mind, I would like some direction about any discussions with the UAE. Have there been any discussions, with the influence of Man City, perhaps? I am not a Man City supporter—this is not about what team I support. I support Leicester City, and we are now in the first division. If we are not careful, we might be in the second; I digress slightly but, when Coventry City went down, it took them 20 years to come back up. I hope it will not take 20 years for Leicester to come back. I hope it will be sooner than that.

A lasting peace can be built only on justice, accountability and the protection of all Sudanese people: Muslim, Christian, whoever. The destruction of places of worship must end; the targeting of civilians must end; the abuse of women and girls must, must, must end; the obstruction of aid must end. The people of Sudan deserve peace, justice, protection and the freedom to believe, worship and live without fear.

We must do all within our power—the physical and emotional power that we have in this country—to help the people of Sudan to change their nation and deliver hope and a future to their young people, the people of tomorrow. As a grandfather, I often think not just of my three boys, but of my six grandchildren and the place I want to leave them in. We want to leave the same thing for their young people. Women and children are valuable to God and to us, and he cares for them as we do.

I often finish with a scripture text. Today, it is Ephesians 6, where it tells us: “Having done all…stand.” The people of Sudan cannot stand alone, so my final request is that our Government stand with them and support their nation. Today, in Westminster Hall, we stand; we can do no other.

14:13

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I believe that this might be the first occasion on which I have done so. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, not untypically, asked the right question with the deep care and compassion that always moves us. He was kind enough to reference the fact that I was in Sudan in 2022, so I speak from some limited personal experience in these matters; I will reflect on that shortly.

It is important to acknowledge from the outset, though, that the conflict in Sudan today is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. It is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes—and what is so disappointing at times is that we do not seem to see it, to hear it or to read about it. As we focus on other events around the world, those terrible atrocities in Sudan fall away from the public gaze. That is deeply regrettable, because of the appalling tragedies that are unfolding there, which the hon. Member for Strangford has just spoken about: millions of people enduring unimaginable suffering, families are being forced from their homes, communities being shattered and many now facing starvation.

I was in Sudan in 2022 working on an academic project. We were tracing the border between Sudan and Egypt—a British creation. There are two different borders constantly under negotiation, drawn at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, leaving a curious geographical anomaly called Bir Tawil between them. We started our journey in Khartoum, working alongside Sudanese guides, who were extraordinary in their care, service and hospitality.

As we travelled north through the Nubian desert, we came across one of the key actors that has driven the conflict to where it is today. Just outside one of the stations on the old British railway that used to run from Wadi Halfa down to Khartoum, we came across the Wagner Group, the Russian paramilitary organisation. They were stationed in the Nubian desert, extracting tons of gold from the sands—transporting it back to Russia to fuel the war in eastern Europe—and training Sudanese paramilitaries at the same time.

We were warned by local members of the Ababda tribe, who inscribed the symbol of the skull and crossbones—the symbol of the Wagner Group—into the sand, that we should not proceed any further along that particular wadi. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there are forces internal and external to Sudan who are driving this conflict. He has mentioned the United Arab Emirates, which I will talk about, but we should not forget the malign forces of the likes of Russia and its proxies, including the Wagner Group.

The scale of the violence we are seeing today is truly horrifying. Across the country, civilians are living in fear, insecurity and hardship every single day. Amidst this devastating conflict, fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are increasingly under threat. At a time when the very concept of human rights is under sustained threat globally, some might find it controversial to suggest that freedom of religion or belief is indeed a universal human right. The truth is that it should not be a controversial concept or principle, and we should continue to hold on to it. Every individual should be free to practise the faith of their choice, change their beliefs or hold no religious belief at all, without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence.

However, reports from Sudan paint a deeply troubling picture. Religious minorities have faced discrimination and intimidation, places of worship have come under attack, and restrictions on religious practice have affected people from a wide range of faith communities and backgrounds. Those abuses are unacceptable and must not be ignored. The international community has so far failed to do enough. More must be done to safeguard religious freedoms, protect vulnerable minorities and uphold the basic rights and dignity of all Sudanese people.

To make one party political reference, in our 2024 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our commitment to protecting, defending and promoting human rights, including the rights of those persecuted because of religious or other faith-based beliefs. An unwavering commitment to human rights and the rule of law is frankly why I am a Liberal Democrat, but I also recognise that those commitments have long defined who we are as a nation and a people, and there is no better place to express them than in this Chamber.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, ensuring that those issues remain a priority in British foreign policy. We continue to support a robust, rights-based approach to tackling the persecution of religious minorities around the world, and that means applying diplomatic pressure where necessary, strengthening protections for those seeking asylum, supporting international accountability mechanisms and backing civil society organisations that work tirelessly to defend religious freedom.

In Sudan, that begins with the UK Government working more closely with international partners to protect religious rights and challenge those—both indigenous and exogenous to Sudan—who are responsible for persecution and violence. It must include a clear commitment to upholding article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which guarantees

“the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the United Kingdom has a particular responsibility in this area as the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan. Therefore, it is uniquely placed to lead international efforts on this crisis. I encourage the Government to use that position to work with allies and partners to push for a ceasefire and prevent further loss of life.

The Liberal Democrats have also called for stronger international action to establish a Sudan-wide arms embargo to stem the flow of weapons that continue to fuel this conflict. Alongside that, the Government might usefully redouble their efforts to establish a multilateral contact group capable of co-ordinating the international response and building consensus among key partners. The international community must resist attempts to legitimise those driving the conflict within and outwith Sudan. It must ensure that individuals responsible for war crimes and serious human rights abuses are held accountable.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Arab Emirates, and it is important that we do, because the role it plays in Sudan has often gone unmentioned in this place. I hope the Minister will offer some comments and reflections on what can be done to ensure that its deeply toxic relationship with Sudan is affected by British diplomacy.

Sudan’s future should be determined by civilian leadership, not by armed forces. At home, the Government should do more to raise public awareness of the crisis and work closely with the Disasters Emergency Committee to support a nationwide humanitarian appeal. Humanitarian workers continue to risk their lives delivering aid to those in the most desperate need, yet they are too often targeted by attacks and reprisals from the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. The UK should work with international and regional partners to secure guarantees for their protection, and should press all parties to allow safe and unrestricted humanitarian access across Sudan.

We must also take stronger action against the smuggling networks that sustain the conflict and prolong the suffering of ordinary Sudanese people. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations appeal and the regional refugee response must be properly funded. The Government should reverse their plans to cut official development assistance and should set out a clear pathway towards restoring aid spending. Particular attention must be given to Sudanese children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the conflict’s consequences. Millions have been denied access to education, healthcare and basic security; an entire generation has been placed at risk.

Individuals and entities responsible for perpetrating, providing arms for or enabling serious human rights abuses in Sudan already face sanctions from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and others. Those measures should remain under constant review and should be strengthened where necessary. I would go as far as to say that they should be expanded to include the role of the United Arab Emirates.

The people of Sudan deserve peace, dignity and the freedom to live according to their beliefs, without fear. The international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, must not look away. We must act with urgency, defend human rights, uphold freedom of religion and belief, and stand alongside the people of Sudan in their time of greatest need.

14:23

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and Members from across the House for their thoughtful and heartfelt contributions. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has actually been to Sudan, which is a rarity in this place. I have not been to Sudan, but I have known the horrors of war.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate because, jostling for attention with other terrible conflicts across the world, Sudan is often forgotten, despite the catastrophic situation there; indeed, it is experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. More than 150,000 people have been killed, nearly 15 million have been displaced, 33 million need humanitarian support, and 40% of Sudan’s population faces severe food insecurity. Yet, the warring parties continue. The Rapid Support Forces and the Sudan armed forces constrain aid deliveries to those most in need. They continue to commit massacres on scales that beggar belief. Appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated daily against women and girls.

Of course, among those barbarous acts, worshippers are being abused, minorities targeted and places of prayer levelled. The religious freedoms of the 2019 draft constitution have collided with the reality of war. The warring parties have attacked religious sites. In particular, the RSF appears to prize places of worship because of their strong walls: fighters take churches and mosques, often threatening and killing clerics and pastors to do so, and then violently clear the area of civilians. In turn, the SAF bombards those places of worship, targeting the RSF and other rebel groups.

The destruction of religious sites is a terrible thing, but worshippers pay the highest price when good and evil collide. We have seen that far too many times: the drone attack on the El Fasher mosque that killed more than 70 people; the airstrike, days before Christmas, on a church in Al Ezba in 2024, which killed 11, including eight children; and the visit without notice of SAF fighters, accompanied by police officers and religious extremists, to demolish the Pentecostal church in El Haj Yousif.

It is not only places of worship that are being targeted. Practices that have been prohibited post al-Bashir are being carried out with impunity. Religious discrimination is reportedly rife. Vulnerable minorities are being forced to convert. Many are denied work, food or education until they abandon their faith. Hudud laws are being used to target minorities, yet the Sudanese authorities are in no state to prevent or prosecute public floggings, which had been outlawed.

[Jim Shannon]

Those who renounce their Christianity and want to convert, or Muslims who want to convert to Christianity, are denied fundamental economic rights. They face the complete forfeiture of any family inheritance, domestic violence and abandonment without financial recourse. Those who were once Muslims and are now Christians lose even their most basic rights. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that, and it is absolutely despicable to see what is taking place.

[Lincoln Jopp]

When these things take place, it is abhorrent to the whole House.

Laws mean nothing when the state lacks even the most basic capacities to enforce them. Among this chaos, bad actors are thriving. We have long known that Russia deploys mercenaries in Sudan in return for a free hand to smuggle gold and a Red sea port for Putin. There are reports that the Houthis are using the chaos in Sudan to smuggle weapons to their terrorist forces in Yemen.

In keeping with the topic of this debate, Iran is using its links to Islamist paramilitaries to perpetrate Sudanese civilians’ suffering. For example, the Al-Baraa Bin Malik Brigade is a Sudanese Islamist militia that has contributed tens of thousands of fighters to the civil war. The US has placed sanctions on the BBMB, but the United Kingdom has not. BBMB fighters have reportedly been involved in arbitrary arrests, torture and summary executions. The BBMB has benefited from training and weapons provided by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the same organisation that the Minister’s party, when in opposition, promised to proscribe. The Government are almost two years into their time in office, and only this week did they publish the text of the legislation that will make that happen.

With that in mind, will the Minister tell us whether he has considered following the US’s lead and sanctioning the BBMB or even proscribing it? How do the Government plan to use the global human rights sanction regime created by the previous Conservative Government to crack down on religiously inspired Iranian agitation in Sudan? Indeed, does the Minister see a wider role for the human rights sanctions regime in cracking down on abuses of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan?

Will the Minister tell us how the Government are pursuing accountability for the religious abuses we have heard about today? How are they gathering evidence of those abuses? Since Sudan was last raised in this House, what have they done to support the collection of evidence of war crimes, so that those responsible can be held to account? How is the UK using international courts to pursue those responsible for such atrocities?

On the big picture, I know that the House is united in wanting to see the immediate end to hostilities in Sudan. We are all aware that pressing the warring parties into a ceasefire, and hopefully an eventual sustainable peace, will require combining our efforts with those of our international allies. How is the Minister using the UK’s role as the penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council to ensure that humanitarian aid is reaching those in desperate need? How is he using that role to tighten the screws on the warring parties, pressing them into a ceasefire and ending this barbaric conflict?

Finally, when did the Minister last engage with his US counterparts on their peace efforts in Sudan, and what specifically is the UK contributing to those efforts? Has he, or any of his colleagues, had discussions with other members of the Sudan Quad about their push for peace? How is the UK supporting the Quad in achieving the goals we hold in common: securing a humanitarian truce followed by a permanent ceasefire, securing a commitment to protect civilians and supporting an inclusive Sudanese transition to establish a civilian-led Government in Sudan?

The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience. The freedom of religion or belief abuses being carried out are utterly barbaric. Britain must exert every ounce of influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately, to secure lasting peace and to hold to account those responsible for the crimes being committed in the name of, and against, religion.

14:32

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I am standing in for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who sends his apologies that he cannot be here. I am sure he would be delighted to respond to this important debate raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has already received many tributes from contributors. I know that, as long as he is in this House, the hon. Member will continue to raise this important issue and which affects many across the world, and will use his full strength of voice on their behalf. I am sure we are all grateful for that.

I thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions. As ever, my beautifully named opposite number, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), rightly spoke of unity across all parties on this question. I will endeavour to go through all of the questions that have been raised.

I will briefly characterise the situation, although that has been done effectively by previous speakers, some of whom commented on their own connections to the area. As some of my colleagues may know, I lived in South Sudan for two years during a difficult period when many had been displaced from Sudan. A notable feature to me was that the nature of the violence in that part of the world has long been particularly extreme. Many hon. Members have already described it in graphic detail. I will not do the same, but it is foremost on the conscience of Foreign Office Ministers, as I know it is for right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House. The statistics are horrifying: 9 million people internally displaced and 4 million stranded on the borders of neighbouring countries. In the midst of all that, basic human rights, including the freedom to practise one’s faith or to hold no faith at all, have been not just stripped away, but used to target violence on specific communities.

The right to freedom of religious belief sits right at the heart of our UK human rights approach. As hon. Members are aware, last July the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), set out the Government strategy on the issue. The strategy focuses on 10 countries, but that does not mean we look away from crises elsewhere—far from it. I know that he has focused on issues in Sudan as well.

Let me also briefly abuse my previous life to respond to the Liberal Democrat demand for an ambassador-level position. Having been a diplomat and a Member of this House, I assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) that having a special envoy rooted in this House is a powerful additional thing. We hear a voice with the authority not only of the Foreign Office but of this House when the envoy speaks, as my hon. Friend has on many occasions, including the appearance I just mentioned.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am sorry for being late, Mrs Barker, but I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan); otherwise I would have been here at the beginning of the debate. It is good to see you in the Chair. My grandmother was born and raised in Birkenhead, so I know not to mess with a strong woman from Merseyside.

May I ask the Minister about the Africa strategy published at the end of last year? What more will we do to ensure that the strategy is rooted in our commitment to human rights and, of course, to freedom of expression and belief?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has been one of the most focused voices in questions around the Africa strategy and the UK’s approach to the continent. I hope he will forgive me if I focus in particular on the specific area in east Africa where, in both Sudan and South Sudan, there have been significant abuses. Later in my speech, I will turn to some of the questions of wider strategy, because as identified by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespersons, the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Surrey Heath, respectively, the conflicts in Sudan and the wider situation in the east of Africa have regional elements.

Our role in multilateral settings has been raised throughout the debate. At the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, in the Human Rights Council, and as penholder at the Security Council, as others have referenced, and leader of the relevant core group in the Human Rights Council, we have been clear just how important the issues in Sudan are. We regularly take part in interactive dialogues with the UN’s special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and other relevant mandate holders to highlight the situation in Sudan.

We made a statement at the UN Third Committee in October and at the 58th session of the Human Rights Council last year. Our special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, condemned the repression of non-Muslims in detention settings in Sudan, following terrible reports of detainees being denied food and coerced to change their beliefs, exactly as we have heard described today. As hon. Members have pointed out, we must use every lever to uphold international law. We have repeatedly condemned the countless violations committed by the warring parties in Sudan, and called on all those parties to honour their commitments to protect civilians and to uphold international law.

None the less, civilians and civilian infrastructure, including places of worship, continue to be routinely, deliberately and cruelly targeted. Like the crisis of sexual violence in Sudan, the repression of basic human rights is used by the competing militias as a weapon of war and as a means of asserting dominance over the territories they control and spreading fear into the territories they do not. In that dangerous and frightening context, we pay tribute to all those courageous souls inside Sudan who are trying to hold their communities together. Religious and community leaders try against all odds to lead their own efforts in conflict prevention, reconciliation, peace building and humanitarian relief. To support the efforts of those local aid groups, the Foreign Secretary announced in April that the Government will double our funding to local humanitarian responders operating in the hardest-to-reach places. In many places, it is those community groups who deliver, in the most dangerous conditions and with the fewest resources. Supporting them is one of the most effective ways we can act to get help to those who need it most.

This year, as the hon. Member for Strangford identified, the UK is providing a further £146 million in funding for humanitarian relief in Sudan, which should ensure that lifesaving aid reaches almost 2 million people. I can reassure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, that Sudan has been ring- fenced from the wider reductions in aid. Alongside our international partners, we are using every diplomatic lever available to press the warring parties to remove obstacles to aid, to guarantee the safety of civilians and aid workers, and to end the siege tactics that have trapped and starved communities.

The involvement of others in the conflict has been raised a number of times. Regrettably, we believe there are at least 12 states funnelling arms into Sudan, which is obviously an inextricable part of the conflict. Members have referred to particular countries and concerns. We do engage, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne asked, with all members of the quad. I spoke to Mr Massad Boulos, the United States lead, just days ago; I know the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Chapman are in regular contact with him as well. The Foreign Secretary and I regularly meet our counterparts in the United Arab Emirates, and the Foreign Secretary has put Sudan right at the top of her agenda, including in her discussions with that country.

We have taken steps in wider formats as well. We are a founding member of the coalition for atrocity prevention and justice. We are committed to advancing justice for the Sudanese people, including religious communities. Launched in February, the coalition is working to press for accountability and justice while bolstering local peacebuilding and protection efforts. We are also supporting Sudanese human rights defenders to verify and preserve information relating to attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. The hon. Member for Spelthorne was right to highlight the importance of ensuring we have an accurate account of abuses. As many hon. Members know, in this era, making sure that reports are verified to a high standard is a priority to ensure that the information we receive is accurate and up to date.

I was asked by hon. Members to comment on sanctions. I hope I will not try their patience too much by saying that we will not comment in the House on upcoming sanctions, but we have now sanctioned 24 individuals and entities aligned with or backing warring parties in Sudan. The measures are intended to send a clear message to those who fuel this war and profit from it, or are linked to the gravest violations of international humanitarian law, that they will face consequences.

We must be frank. Important though all those steps are, they will not by themselves bring peace. There will be no end to the crisis and no end to the repression and violence affecting communities, including those of faith, unless the fighting finally stops. That is why the Foreign Secretary continues to work urgently with international partners to press for a ceasefire and to lay the groundwork for an inclusive, civilian-led transition, which will turn that ceasefire into a just and lasting peace. That includes working alongside various nations and organisations, including the African Union-led quintet, to support the Sudanese civil society actors who are working to reshape Sudan’s future for recovery, long-term peace and justice. We must be absolutely clear in everything we do. Any political settlement that emerges from this brutal conflict must be inclusive and protect the rights of all Sudanese people. It must respect Sudan’s diversity, including its many different faith communities, and it must create space for people of all religions and none to live freely, safely and equally under the law. The UK will continue to stand up for freedom of religious belief in Sudan, not just because it is under attack now, but because it is a test of whether peace can be sustained in future.

14:44

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for pre-reading my speech. He knew my four headlines, and mentioned the four of them in an intervention, delivering my speech in four words or thereabouts—that would have been a small speech for me. I know he has a deep interest in Sudan, and I thank him for coming along.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). He and I share many deep interests, and Sudan is one of them. We understand the issue of persecution of those of Christian faith, other faiths and no faith. We understand the issue of human rights abuse, and Sudan is unfortunately the epitome of all the things that are going wrong. He also referred to article 18 of the United Nations charter, which is core to this issue, and to the UAE. The Minister has just confirmed that 10 or 12 states are involved in the supply of arms, which gives us some concern.

It was nice of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) to come along. He married a girl from Northern Ireland, so he is almost a Northern Ireland citizen. He focused on the Africa strategy. The Minister kindly replied to him and said that is something he brings up regularly. We thank him for that.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—gallant Member that he is—is a great friend of Northern Ireland. He is a great friend of mine because of his service in the forces, and a great friend of all in this House for all he did to bring about peace. He focused on the 33 million people in need in Sudan. That is a massive figure. It is half the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is how big it is. Such is its vastness that it could go from Liverpool down to the very south coast or from Liverpool up to Edinburgh. He referred to the killing of pastors and priests and the destruction of churches and mosques. If the law is to mean anything, the state must act; it cannot ignore these incidents. I thought that was important. He also underlined what the US is doing. I am sure it is doing something. It is sometimes easy to disregard that, but it is important to recognise, although it could be doing more to work collectively.

I thank the Minister for his answers and for his tone. He gave us great encouragement, and his words were well chosen and well spoken. He referred to the UK’s role as the penholder and to the graphic violence. We do not need to go into that, but just thinking about it makes me feel bad, to tell the truth. The extra £146 million he mentioned will reach another 2 million people. He referred to the 12 states that are funnelling the arms to area, but it is encouraging to hear that Sudanese human rights defenders are collecting evidence of abuses. Some of the guys who are involved in the atrocities and bestial activities will be held to account someday. The Minister is right: the fighting must stop. We all wish that the fighting would stop. We should all be encouraged that our Minister and our Government are committed to trying to find peace.

I suggest there is one more thing we all need to do. If we are not doing it, I think we should. We should pray every day for Sudan and its people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered freedom of religion or belief in Sudan.

14:48

Sitting suspended.

Secondary Breast Cancer

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

15:10

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered secondary breast cancer.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital; a family member also holds shares in a medical company.

It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate on incurable secondary breast cancer, a debate that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and I have brought to Westminster Hall. I thank the many healthcare professionals, charities and life science organisations that have provided valuable information ahead of the debate. I also thank the patients and the charities Breast Cancer Now, Make 2nds Count and METUP UK, who are represented today in the Public Gallery, for their work and support. I would like to recognise everyone involved in the Moments That Count campaign exhibition last November, particularly the brave testimonies from Claire, Laura, Jo, Lisa and Juliet.

As I have mentioned many times in Parliament, I am a breast cancer survivor. That experience showed me the importance of early diagnosis and effective treatment, not only for survival but for the quality of life. My own diagnosis was delayed: I was initially sent away by the first GP I saw, and I waited several months before being diagnosed. During that time, the cancer spread to my lymph glands, which had to be removed. Eighteen years later, I still experience the consequences, most recently just a few weeks ago.

Fortunately, my treatment was successful. For those living with secondary breast cancer, however, a cure is not an option. Secondary breast cancer occurs when the disease spreads to other parts of the body. Treatments can slow its progression and give people more time, but it cannot be cured. About 11,500 women and 90 men die from breast cancer every year, and most of those deaths are caused by secondary breast cancer. For those living with the disease, every extra month matters, yet too often their voices are not heard, their needs are not recognised and time runs out.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member and to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this vital debate. I am pleased that it was rescheduled from earlier in the year and that we have the opportunity to be here today.

In advance of this debate, I heard from many women in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have been impacted by breast cancer. I am here to add my voice to their calls for action, to place on the record my support for the More Time to Live campaign and to pay tribute to Breast Cancer Now for all it does. I am grateful to my two colleagues for giving me the opportunity to do so.

[Clive Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for putting his support on the record. This debate is very important: it gives us the opportunity to highlight the experiences of people living with secondary breast cancer and the action needed to support them.

One of the biggest challenges is the lack of reliable data. It is estimated that about 61,000 people in the UK are living with secondary breast cancer, but we do not know that for certain. The disease remains under-recognised, poorly tracked and inadequately recorded. People living with secondary breast cancer are still not consistently counted. Too often, they are invisible within the health system, making it harder to provide the tailored treatment, services and support that they need.

Some 20 years ago, data collection on metastatic breast cancer was identified as a priority by Breast Cancer Now’s secondary breast cancer taskforce. Progress was made in 2013 when mandatory data collection was introduced, and subsequent strategies have promised further improvements, but we are still flying blind. The first two national audits of metastatic breast cancer were unable to provide a complete picture, because recurrence data remains insufficient, both in quality and in completeness. The audit has demonstrated just how important it is that the issue be addressed: without accurate data, the NHS cannot properly plan services, allocate resources or understand the scale of need. Better data could also help to address continuing gaps in access to clinical nurse specialists for people with metastatic breast cancer.

Most importantly, people living with the disease are left feeling that they do not count, because the system cannot guarantee the support that they need. The reality is simple: if we do not know how many people have the disease, we cannot hope to support them effectively. This challenge is not unique to the UK; it is a global issue, and international collaboration can help us to learn from best practice elsewhere, but we should be leading the way. That is why the Government’s national cancer plan is so important. The plan commits to defining and counting recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer in 2026. That commitment must now be delivered in full, and Parliament must hold the Government to account on achieving it. The ongoing work of the national disease registration service with NHS trusts to improve data collection is encouraging, but progress will require national leadership and accountability.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for West Lancashire is here today. Ashley Dalton was the Minister who drove the national cancer plan through Parliament.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. Members must not refer to each other by name in the Chamber.

[Clive Jones]

I did mention the hon. Member’s constituency first, but I take your guidance, Mr Betts—my apologies for that.

I recently joined a meeting with the hon. Member and with charities including Breast Cancer Now, Breast Cancer Network Australia and Rethink Breast Cancer. Together those charities are working across the UK, Australia and Canada to improve metastatic breast cancer data and ensure that patients’ voices are heard. The message is clear: if we do not count people, we cannot support them. Collecting and publishing this data is essential, because people with metastatic breast cancer count.

Alongside better data, timely access to new treatments is critical. Secondary breast cancer may be incurable, but advances in medicine have transformed outcomes or many patients, giving them more time with the people they love. However, too many patients still struggle to access life-extending treatments on the NHS. One example is Enhertu, a treatment for people with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. It has the potential to extend and improve lives, yet it was rejected for routine NHS use in England in 2024 on cost grounds. As a result, many patients have been unable to access the treatment that they need. Meanwhile, Enhertu is already available in 26 European countries, including Scotland. England is falling behind. Recent changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s cost-effectiveness threshold provide an important opportunity to revisit that decision. I urge Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, NICE and NHS England to work together to reach an agreement so that patients can access and benefit from Enhertu.

More broadly, concerns remain about how NICE assesses medicines and about the impact on innovation and access to treatments, particularly following the introduction of the severity modifier in 2022. Even after recent changes, the threshold for approving some medicines for metastatic cancer remains lower than before 2022. NICE has estimated that the revisions may result in only three to five additional medicines being approved each year. It is the patients who pay the price. Life-extending treatments exist, but they are not always available to those who need them most. That cannot be right.

The commitments in the national cancer plan to streamline medicine approvals and accelerate clinical trials are welcome. The recent UK-US pharmaceutical agreements, including commitments to strengthen support for the life sciences sector, are likewise welcome, but without meaningful investment in innovative medicines for severe conditions, access will remain limited and patients will continue to miss opportunities for longer and better lives. Support services also remain inadequate.

Clinical nurse specialists play a vital role in guiding patients through complex treatment pathways and providing emotional support, yet many people with secondary breast cancer still do not have access to a clinical nurse specialist. Even among those who do, a quarter have not seen their specialist since diagnosis, and only 65% feel that their specialist has enough time for them. The reason is simple: caseloads are too high. We must recognise the profound emotional impact of secondary breast cancer. More than a quarter of patients say that they did not receive enough mental health support. Many need greater support for their family as well. The NHS long-term plan promised every cancer patient access to a clinical nurse specialist or support worker. That commitment must now be delivered for people with secondary breast cancer who need specialist expertise to navigate this complex disease.

People living with metastatic breast cancer do not have time to wait. They need to be counted. They need access to the support they deserve. They need rapid access to treatments that can give them more precious time with the people they love. I ask the Minister for two clear commitments. First, will she set out a timeline for delivering the national cancer plan’s commitment to define and count recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer in 2026, and will she outline any plans to make the data that is currently held by the national disease registration service publicly available? Secondly, what are the Government doing to support metastatic breast cancer patients who may miss out on life-extending medicines because of pricing and access barriers?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call Mary Kelly Foy next, as the co-sponsor of the debate. After her speech, I will give hon. Members an indication of how long they may have to speak, to try to get us to the end of the debate in a reasonable fashion.

15:22

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) to secure this important debate. I thank the campaigners who work to ensure that people living with secondary breast cancer are seen, heard and supported. I am thrilled that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who has spoken so openly about her diagnosis, is here today: I am sure that her remarks will be invaluable.

I speak not only as a Member of Parliament, but as someone who has been through breast cancer. I was fortunate: my cancer was picked up through screening and caught early. I received timely treatment and am now cancer-free, but I am forever grateful to the teams at the QE hospital in Gateshead, the Maggie’s centre and Future Dreams for their support. Whenever I can, I encourage people to attend screening appointments and to check themselves. In fact, on 14 July I will be hosting an event alongside leading breast cancer advocates and sporting ambassadors, focusing on raising awareness of the importance of women prioritising their breast health. I would love the Minister to join us.

I know that my personal experience was not that of someone living with secondary breast cancer. For people whose cancer has spread and can be treated but not cured, time is everything. In 2026, it is unacceptable that we do not know with confidence how many people are living with secondary breast cancer. We know that around 60,000 people in the UK are living with it, but that remains just an estimate. More than a decade after data collection was made mandatory, it is still not being consistently or accurately recorded across the country, and if people are not properly counted, their needs are too easily overlooked. The NHS cannot plan the right number of specialist nurses, oncology appointments, palliative care services, mental health support services or clinical trials if the true scale of need is not known.

I welcome the work of the national disease registration service, with NHS trusts, to improve data returns on metastatic breast cancer, but I am concerned that no data has yet been published. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the national cancer plan, to define and count recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer, and to ensure that patients have named primary contacts, but patients need delivery now, not just commitment. The NHS must routinely capture data on not only diagnosis but treatment and support needs. That is how we can move from counting people in theory to improving the services available to them in practice.

In Durham, trust was shattered when failures were identified in breast services at County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust. The concerns went way beyond isolated mistakes, and patients wondered whether the care that they received was truly in line with the standards that they should expect. Patients place their lives in the hands of the system, so they deserve to know that decisions about their care are evidence- based, properly scrutinised and made through strong, multidisciplinary teams. When that trust is broken, it is difficult to rebuild. I pay tribute to those who spoke out, such as my constituent Jackie, who did so on behalf of her sorely missed daughter, Michaela, and Amelia, Cat and Nadeen, who formed the Pink Justice Network. I do also recognise the efforts of the new senior leadership team at the trust, who are working to reform services and repair patient confidence.

On access to treatments, everyone living with secondary breast cancer deserves to have access to new, effective life-extending treatments, but there are serious concerns that the way in which NICE currently assesses some drugs limits access for people living with incurable metastatic breast cancer. Campaigners have warned that since the introduction of the severity modifier, some advance cancer treatments have been disadvantaged compared with the previous system. Breast Cancer Now reports that only a minority of end-of-life treatments assessed under the new approach received the same level of priority as they would have before.

The clearest example is Enhertu, which could give people with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer more time, yet was not recommended for routine NHS use in England in 2024, as a cost-effective pricing agreement could not be reached. Since then, eligible patients have missed out, and people have asked why a life-extending treatment should be available in Scotland but not in England. The Government’s decision to increase the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold for new medicines is welcome, and I hope it will create an opportunity to reach an agreement on Enhertu. I also welcome the fact that discussions between AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, NHS England and NICE are understood to have begun. More than 50,000 people have signed a petition calling for urgent agreement on Enhertu. They are asking for something very simple: that all parties come together to find a way to give eligible patients more time.

I must also mention the work of our hospices, such as St Cuthbert’s hospice in Durham, which are supported by charities such as Marie Curie, in providing people who are living with secondary breast cancer with the services that they need. Marie Curie reports that one in three people do not receive the care and support they need at the end of life, so I welcome the fact that the Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework. I hope that the framework will address the lack of support available outside of normal working hours, embed palliative care in neighbourhood health and ensure that the palliative care workforce is fit for the future.

Will the Minister set out how the Government will ensure three things: first, that secondary breast cancer data is collected and published consistently across every trust, with clear accountability for delivery; secondly, that every patient has meaningful access to a specialist named contact with the time and capacity to support them properly; and thirdly, that people living with secondary breast cancer are not left behind when life-extending treatments become available?

Secondary breast cancer is not just a diagnosis. Mothers miss milestones, daughters face uncertain futures, partners become carers and families must live with a clock that they never asked to hear ticking. We do not ask for kind words today, but for action on research, access to treatment, support and giving people more time not just to survive, but to live—because behind every diagnosis is a person who still has dreams, plans and a life worth fighting for.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. We have four Members who want to come in, so I will issue a guideline of nine minutes each for speeches, if Members could stick to that, please.

15:30

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I want to focus on something that sits at the heart of improving outcomes for people living with secondary breast cancer: data, research and recognition. That especially applies to people suffering from lobular breast cancer.

Last year, my office asked the Government whether the new national audit of metastatic breast cancer would provide a breakdown by breast cancer subtype and hormone receptor status. The response from the Department of Health and Social Care was striking. The Government have effectively admitted that the data is simply not there in any complete or meaningful form. There is still no clear national picture of how many people are living with different forms of secondary breast cancer, what treatments they receive or the outcomes they face. That matters because, if we cannot accurately count metastatic breast cancer patients, we cannot properly plan services, understand needs, target research funding or develop treatments. We cannot fix what we do not measure.

That is especially true for lobular breast cancer. Invasive lobular carcinoma is the second most common form of breast cancer. Twenty-two people are diagnosed with it every day in the UK, yet it remains chronically under-researched and poorly understood. Unlike ductal breast cancer, lobular cancer often does not form a distinct lump. It grows in thin, single-file patterns, making it much harder to detect on standard mammograms and often leading to delayed diagnosis.

Secondary lobular breast cancer also presents further challenges because it tends to be found in untypical places, such as the liver, lungs, brain, bladder and even the eyes, whereas other types of breast cancer spread mostly to the bones. Despite those key biological differences, there is still no specific treatment pathway designed for lobular breast cancer patients. That is extraordinary, considering how many women are affected.

For too long, secondary and metastatic lobular breast cancer has existed in a blind spot. Historically, cancer registries have focused on primary diagnoses and have often failed to track recurrence or progression properly. Mandatory reporting has improved matters somewhat over the last decade, but huge gaps remain. That is why the work of campaigners and researchers has been so important.

I especially want to recognise and pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. She was one of my Horsham constituents, and she sadly died of lobular breast cancer almost a year ago. Susan was relentless in pushing this issue into public view. She understood that, without data, dedicated research and recognition that lobular breast cancer is different, progress would remain unacceptably slow. Her work has already helped encourage NHS England to release the first dedicated statistics on lobular breast cancer, but much more needs to happen.

This is about more than statistics. It is about people living for years with secondary breast cancer while feeling invisible within the system. Better subtype data would help us understand metastatic disease properly. Better research would improve diagnosis and, ultimately, dedicated treatment pathways for lobular breast cancer could help us move closer to what patients want to hear most of all: that their cancer is not just treatable, but curable.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project is looking for just £20 million over five years to fund research into the basic biology of lobular breast cancer. Researchers at the Manchester Breast Centre are ready and willing to take on the mission—they could start tomorrow. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is supported by more than 460 sitting MPs, more than can be found on any other single issue. All it needs now is for the Government to press the button. While we wait for that, women face poorer outcomes and require medications that were actually designed for other types of cancer, which cost upwards of £3,000 per month. Now is the time for the Government to commit to front-loaded funding to save lives, save money for the NHS and, most of all, demonstrate to those women that they matter. I ask the Minister for her support in finding the modest investment required to find answers for this very common but, sadly, much-neglected disease.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I am supposed to be neutral in the Chair, but I think I am allowed to give a particularly warm welcome to Ashley Dalton.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

15:36

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

As ever, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I first acknowledge the campaigners from Make 2nds Count, METUP UK and Breast Cancer Now and the fellow MBC patients who are joining us in the Public Gallery. If you will indulge me, Mr Betts, I would like to take this opportunity to say a special thank you to my team at the Clatterbridge in Liverpool for the support they have given me through my treatment and diagnosis.

I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate on secondary breast cancer. Secondary, metastatic, advanced, stage 4, disseminated, which a new one for me, distant metastatic spread—lots of words that all mean the same thing: incurable breast cancer. For completeness, there is a relatively new term: oligometastatic, which means very small or very few metastases. There is a school of thought that suggests that that may be curable, but the jury is still out on that, so we will stick with the terms that we have. But there are some other words that describe secondary breast cancer: devastating, terrifying, overwhelming, horrifying, desperate, anger, resentment and fear—all of which I have certainly felt.

This debate calls it secondary breast cancer. It is really important that we get it right, because I have met many people who think that secondary breast cancer means having breast cancer for the second time. It does not. Let me be really clear about that. As we have heard, secondary breast cancer is breast cancer that has spread outside the breast tissue and is now incurable. It can be diagnosed after a primary diagnosis—primary breast cancer is potentially curable—or the first time that a person is diagnosed with breast cancer. That is called a de novo diagnosis. That is what secondary breast cancer is and, as we have heard, I have it, along with many, many other people.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the myths around breast cancer. Colleagues have spoken really well about some of the issues and concerns, and the politics and policies involved, but I want to talk about the reality and some of the myths about secondary breast cancer. The big myth for many people is that it is curable. A number of people have, very well-meaningly, said to me, “How long will you be on treatment?” I will be on treatment until I die. “I hope you make a full recovery.” I am not going to be making a recovery. My favourite—I know people mean well—is: “If anyone can beat this, you can.” I know people mean well when they say that, but the truth is that I cannot beat it. I will always be in treatment, and I will not recover. It is absolutely terrifying, but we have to be honest about this. If we are not honest and do not grasp the nettle about this disease, we cannot truly tackle it.

There are some other myths about breast cancer. One is that when it spreads, it is a new cancer. If you have breast cancer and then you have cancer in your bones, that is not bone cancer; it is breast cancer in your bones. It looks like breast cancer and the cells are breast cancer; they behave like breast cancer and they will need to be treated like breast cancer. There is also a myth that the treatment for your primary cancer was somehow wrong or had failed if you get metastatic breast cancer. Again, that is absolute nonsense. Breast cancer can still spread, even after successful treatment for a primary cancer, and even with the best treatments in the world. Breast cancer in particular can lie dormant for years and years.

That leads me to the five-year myth. We often count survival after primary diagnosis and treatment at the five-year point. Sometimes, that creates the idea that if you get to five years and it has not come back, you are okay. Sadly, that is not true; it does not mean that it will never come back. Breast cancer in particular can come back up to 20 years, if not longer, after primary diagnosis. My breast cancer came back 10 years after my primary diagnosis. I do not say that to terrify people, but to say that it is absolutely imperative that they are aware of the signs and symptoms of secondary breast cancer in case they ever have them, no matter how long it has been since their primary diagnosis—or indeed, if they have ever had one. I put on record my commendation and thanks to Jo from METUPUK, who developed the infographic on secondary breast cancer symptoms, which has been extremely useful.

We have heard about lobular breast cancer, and there is an idea that secondary breast cancer is one disease. Obviously, it is not: there is ductal, lobular, metaplastic, inflammatory and other sub-groups such as hormone receptive, HER2-positive, HER2-negative and triple negative. The weird thing about cancer is that it is not a disease that infects us. It is not something from outside that we pick up, or that we get. It is us—it is our own cells that change and do this to us, so our cancer, invariably, is as unique as we are. There is also a myth that all treatments will work for everybody, and that if you have one kind of cancer, a certain treatment will work. Unfortunately—sadly—that is not the case, because we are all unique. A treatment that can be extremely effective for one person can have absolutely no impact on somebody else.

There is also the idea that the treatment for metastatic breast cancer is more aggressive than that for primary cancer; actually, it is often the opposite. I cannot be cured, so what is the point of making me so sick that I cannot get out of bed for six months? The point of treatment is to keep the cancer at bay—to hold it back to allow me to continue to do this work and live my life—not necessarily to cure me.

Then there is the myth that metastatic breast cancer means that you are going to die soon. I received some absolutely terrible comments when I went public with my disease. One particularly lovely person on Facebook said, “Oh, there’ll be a by-election soon then,” assuming that I was going to be dead—that was two years ago. It is not necessarily true. Metastatic breast cancer is treatable, but it is not curable. Our treatments are there to hold it at bay and treat pain and other side effects. Sometimes we might even get the holy grail of “no evidence of disease”, which is what everybody hopes for. That does not mean that you are necessarily cancer free, because we know that it lies dormant and we cannot necessarily see it.

We know what secondary breast cancer is, so what are we going to do about it? Some of these points have been raised already, but the national cancer plan, which I, as the Minister at the time, was delighted to lead on and launch earlier this year, is perhaps the first national cancer plan that does not have metastatic disease as a brief mention but has it at its heart. I am really pleased about that, because it has not been forgotten about—it is in the plan.

The No. 1 thing that I wanted to make sure was in the plan was that we count; this has already been touched on. We estimate that 61,000 people have metastatic breast cancer, but really we have not got a clue. We have some good data for de novo—where it is diagnosed initially—but for people like me who are diagnosed 10, 12 or 20 years later, we do not really know. Without that data, we cannot build the services or estimate demand. The fundamental truth is, if I am not counted, I do not count. We must start this. The cancer plan commits to counting metastatic disease properly, starting with breast cancer, so I ask the Minister what progress has been made, and will she set a deadline for trusts to report? It is literally just counting.

On research and lines of treatment, some treatments work and some of them do not. Basically, you try them, and if they work, you stay on them until they stop working or they make you so ill that you cannot carry on, and then you try another one. It is literally a process of trial and error, and you keep going until you run out of options, which means that without access to new drugs and without trials, we will run out of options sooner rather than later, and when we run out of options, we die.

The cancer plan committed to develop world-class cancer care through world-class research, so I ask the Minister what progress has been made, particularly to establish the cancer trials accelerator by 2027. When we do develop those drugs, we need to know that we are getting them. Changes to NICE criteria, namely the severity modifier, have been touched on, so I ask the Minister what developments have been made on them. Will she explore those? Access to drugs and research makes it possible for me and others like me to see our children grow, to meet our grandchildren and to bury our parents, not the other way round. Lives with metastatic breast cancer matter too.

15:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for calling attention to this disease, and I thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for her spirit and courage; it always touches me and makes me quite proud of her. I wanted to put that on the record.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Pat Cullen), some local ladies, Tristan Loraine and I had a meeting with Health Minister Mike Nesbitt in Northern Ireland some four or five weeks ago to discuss the issue of lobular cancer. It was an important meeting because those ladies around the table were ladies like the hon. Lady for West Lancashire; they were ladies who had cancer, were living with it and were trying to deal with it. Their personal stories really touched me because almost every one of those ladies had children. One lady had four young children, and I was moved by her contribution and very touched by the life that she was leading with four young children.

Each month in the UK, around 1,000 people die from secondary breast cancer, which equates to one life every 45 minutes. That stat paints a harrowing picture of the devastating impact that secondary breast cancer has on many individuals and their families. Although the cancer is not curable, as it has metastasised, it is treatable and can often be managed. On average, patients can survive two or three years or more after diagnosis. Symptoms can be relieved, and patients’ quality of life can be maintained, with many leading a “normal life”.

In 2024, secondary breast cancer was deemed “moderately severe”, meaning that funding would not be granted in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. My request is that we have access to the licensed Enhertu drug, which is used to slow the cancer’s progression and maintain quality of life for patients. It is incredibly difficult to justify a system in which patients in Scotland and more than 20 other European countries can access this treatment, while eligible patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot. It just does not make sense. Mental health support should also be invested in across the United Kingdom to ensure that patients and their families receive emotional support to help them cope.

Despite secondary breast cancer being the leading cause of death for women under 60 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, over 40% of British adults have not heard of the disease. There is a lack of awareness. It was quite amazing to know that some of the ladies I met that day with the Minister in Northern Ireland thought that they were cured but found out that they were not, because the full diagnosis had not been done. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) is very knowledgeable about the Lobular Moon Shot Project; he spoke about how more needs to be done, and I want to speak about that as well. It is estimated that some 36% of people cannot name any signs or symptoms of the cancer.

Those figures show that there is much work to be done to ensure that individuals are informed, and that they rapidly access treatment as a result of early diagnosis. We can, however, inform the public only of what we know. Advancements must be made to invest in further research to deepen healthcare professionals’ understanding of the disease and change its prognosis from being a death sentence. Charities such as Breast Cancer Now have already awarded some £300,000 to researchers at Queen’s University Belfast to support an investigation into the inequalities among people living with this disease.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. She encourages us with her interest and compassion for this subject, and I know that she will give us some idea of what has been done at Queen’s University Belfast and the trials that are taking place. We are not that far from finding the cure, and from raising awareness to the level it should be at to save lives and give people hope for the future, long beyond the times that have been allocated. Has the Minister’s Department had an opportunity to talk to Queen’s University Belfast to see what it is doing? Has she had a chance to talk to Mike Nesbitt, the Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to support the investigation into the inequalities among people living with this disease?

The study will consider factors including education, income, disability and mental health—we always say this, because it is the truth: it is not just the ladies who suffer; the families, the children and their in-laws suffer too, because they are all very aware of what is happening—to determine how inequalities influence patients’ access to care, their treatment outcomes and their overall quality of life. Would the Government consider supporting this research at Queen’s University Belfast so that everyone living with the disease across the United Kingdom is given a fair chance to access effective care?

Speaking as my party’s health spokesperson and as a representative from Northern Ireland, I draw attention to the long wait times for cancer referrals in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. From July to September 2025, urgent breast cancer referrals in particular saw long delays, with just 6.8% seen within the 14-day target. Over the same time, the Health and Social Care Trust received more than 6,000 referrals for suspected breast cancer, 86% of which were marked as urgent—86%, and no response. With approximately 1,000 living with the disease in Northern Ireland, I must draw attention to the increased risk of women in Northern Ireland experiencing delays in diagnosis and access to treatment.

Cancer treatment should not be a postcode lottery. Advances in treatment mean that more people can now live longer and maintain a good quality of life with secondary breast cancer. While the disease remains incurable, everyone across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have equal access to the treatment and support that they need. I join Members—those who have spoken and those who will speak shortly—in looking to the Minister and simply asking for more: more screening, more funding and more saving of lives.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Before I call Wendy Chamberlain, let me say that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has indicated to me that he has to leave at about quarter past 4. He has a plane to catch; I accept that as a reason, and he has given advance notice, which I thank him for. We will begin the wind-ups by 4.05 pm at the latest.

15:54

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Some people, both in this place and outside of it, say that politicians are out of touch, that they do not care and that they do not bring their lived experience to the Chamber. I want to thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for everything that she did in her role as Health Minister and for her powerful speech. It should be essential watching for those who say otherwise about politicians’ intentions in this place.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this debate, and I thank them for telling their own cancer experiences. Like most Members, I have been impacted by breast cancer in that my mother is a survivor. She was diagnosed when I was away from home for the first time at university. It was difficult for the family to receive that diagnosis and difficult for me, knowing that my mum was going through treatment while I was far away from home. I am pleased to say that she is still with us.

My colleague and friend in the Liberal Democrats in North East Fife, Councillor Fiona Corps, is currently stable after undergoing treatment for lobular breast cancer. She messaged me today to say she started her new meds yesterday. It is only two years since her daughter’s leukaemia fight. Fiona and her family have been through a lot. Her diagnosis brought me to speak to the lobular breast cancer campaign and I, like others, want to focus my remarks on that cancer in particular. Part of that is because, in relation to secondary breast cancer, the unmet clinical need of lobular breast cancer means the chances of it spreading are incredibly high. Indeed, for many who are diagnosed it has already spread by the time of their diagnosis.

It is important to note that this year marks 50 years since doctors first knew that lobular breast cancer was a distinct condition. I had not been born—just—we did not yet have Sony Walkmans, personal computers or mobile phones, “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” was No. 1 for six weeks, and “Rocky” won best picture. I know it has been a long time since Scotland were in the World Cup, but this really was a long time ago. Here we are 50 years later in a world with advances that were unimaginable back then, but we have made painfully little progress on the diagnosis and treatment of lobular breast cancer.

As others have referenced, it is not like we think breast cancer is. As a woman, I have been taught to check for lumps—my mother’s experience made that more acute—but lobular cells grow in single lines that spread out over tissue. If a somebody did a lump check today, the chances are they would not spot it. Even more worryingly, if somebody goes for a mammogram, it will probably not show up there either. As others have referenced, 22 people are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, but the reality is that we do not know how many people might be living with the disease and getting progressively more ill without treatment.

As of today, we still understand very little about it and there are no dedicated treatments for it. I am conscious that health is a devolved issue. I am standing here as a Scottish MP, but given the Minister’s responsibilities, I will note that the Government’s recent cancer action plan for England did not mention lobular breast cancer. We can say that other treatments are available, and Fiona and others are taking other treatments, but they are hit and miss. I have engaged with the Lobular Moon Shot Project and with Tristan—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne)—and the story of his wife, Susan. She had eight different generic breast cancer treatments, none of which worked. Frankly, that lack of treatment kills people.

That is why lobular breast cancer is so relevant to the debate on secondary breast cancer. Not enough people know what to look for because it does not show up on tests, it is diagnosed late, and when it is diagnosed, there is not a dedicated treatment pathway for it. It is a recipe for a cancer spreading and we heard very powerfully from the hon. Member for West Lancashire what a diagnosis of secondary breast cancer means.

Unsurprisingly, there is still a lot that we do not know about what happens when the cancer spreads. We know it can spread to areas where other cancers do not like to, such as the outside membrane of the spine. We also know that the cells can lie dormant for years before starting to spread again. What we do not know is why any of that happens, how it can be identified, or how it can be stopped.

There could be hope. As others have referenced, researchers across this country are ready to take on this challenge. Importantly, there is cross-party support for getting this done; it is probably one of the most bipartisan campaigns in the history of this place. The Liberal Democrats are behind it; our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister about funding last summer. Indeed, I recently asked the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), about the project. He suggested that the money was there to fund the project, but work was needed on the programme of research. I say to the Minister: that is not how those involved with the project see it. This is a campaign that almost every Opposition MP supports, as well as huge numbers of those in the governing Labour party. Outwith this place, 84% of Labour voters surveyed in 2024 wanted lobular breast cancer research to be funded.

As others have said, £20 million over a five-year settlement equates to £238 per person for every person diagnosed over the next 10 years. Although I do not believe that life-changing research should be about a cost-benefit analysis, £238 is nothing compared with the costs of patients being out of the labour market and being treated over several years with the wrong thing—successfully or not.

I know that the Lobular Moon Shot Project is calling on devolved Governments to step up as well and provide £1 million per year for research to be carried out in their countries; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to that, too. I call on the new Scottish Government and the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care to take this ask incredibly seriously.

I am sure that the Minister will refer to the current National Institute for Health and Care Research funding round. I do not want to pre-empt that—it is, of course, important— but it is not the same funding as is needed for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which is research into the underlying biology of lobular breast cancer. Such research will remain weak until we know what it is we are trying to treat. We need funding for research into the underlying biology, so that lobular breast cancer can be identified, diagnosed and treated. That will improve outcomes drastically, including reducing the number of people with secondary breast cancer, which is the topic of this debate.

I will conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has demonstrated very visibly that breast cancer is not simply a female issue, so I will end today by reflecting on the fact that anyone can get cancer. Many of those who do get cancer will make a full recovery. For some, cancer is something they will live with for the remainder of their life, but it will not be the condition from which they die. However, we have heard today that secondary breast cancer is decisive in terms of people’s life expectancy. We must let those women and men know that they are not alone.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front Benchers.

16:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate, and for sharing their experience with cancer. I also thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for her frankness and openness in describing her own experience.

Secondary breast cancer is now the leading cause of death in the UK for women between 40 and 49. Each month, around 1,000 people lose their lives to secondary breast cancer. That is one person every 45 minutes, so two lives will be lost to this disease in the short span of this debate.

Secondary breast cancer is incurable; treatment can slow down the disease, but it cannot cure it. Nevertheless, 13 years after data collection on secondary breast cancer became mandatory for all NHS trusts, the true number of people living with this disease remains unknown. It is estimated that the number is around 61,000. However, the lack of accurate data makes thousands of people who are in need of care invisible to the healthcare system. That is simply unacceptable. Those people count and we must count them. Collecting and publishing this data is essential. Without it, how can the NHS accurately assess the scale of need and appropriately plan services to ensure that support is available where required?

The Government’s commitment within the national cancer plan to define and count all secondary cancers, beginning with breast cancer, and the target to meet all cancer wait-time standards by 2029, are steps in the right direction. But to achieve those ambitions in full, we must be bolder and do so much more.

The Liberal Democrats are clear: quality and speed of treatment are vital to increase the survival rates for secondary breast cancer. The results of the research conducted by Breast Cancer Now in 2019 are damning. They make the lack of quality and the poor speed of treatment and care undeniable. They showed that 23% of respondents had to see their GP three or more times before they were diagnosed, and 53% of respondents said that they had not been given enough information about clinical trials by healthcare professionals. Just 30% of respondents said that they saw a cancer nurse specialist regularly and only 13% of respondents who had previously had breast cancer felt that they had been given enough information to recognise the signs and symptoms of secondary breast cancer.

Those figures show a healthcare system that is creaking under the strain after years of neglect by the previous Conservative Government. They highlight that professionals lack the time and capacity to effectively diagnose, offer follow-up care and share sufficient information, for which patients ultimately pay the price.

Every patient must get the care and support they need, when and where they need it. We must support the specialist cancer workforce, as well as GPs, to deliver the standard of care they would like and we expect. I therefore urge the Minister to take forward the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral; to recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment; and to expand the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity to halve the time for new treatments to reach the patients who desperately need them.

I think of the two people who will have lost their lives to secondary breast cancer in the 90 minutes of this debate. For them, and all the secondary breast cancer patients past, present and future, I implore the Minister to consider many of the calls raised by me and my colleagues here today.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We move on to the shadow Minister, Dr Caroline Johnson, who has 10 minutes to make her contribution.

16:06

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate, which I know is extremely personal to both of them. I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her speech. It is quite common in this place for people to say that an hon. Lady or hon. Gentleman has given an extremely powerful speech, but that was an extremely powerful speech. I was moved by it, and I am in great admiration of her courage and the frankness with which she speaks in this House about her illness. I was fortunate enough to be at a roundtable earlier in the week with the New Statesman about the cancer plan, with the hon. Member for Wokingham and others. I found it very insightful and thought-provoking, like the contributions we have heard in the Chamber today.

As has been said, for many people, primary breast cancer never comes back after treatment, and treatment for primary breast cancer has significantly improved. But sometimes the cancer cells spread to other parts of the body—commonly the bones, lungs, liver, brain or skin—which is called secondary or metastatic breast cancer. As we have heard, the best estimate we have is that there are around 61,000 people living with secondary breast cancer in the United Kingdom, but that statistic is uncertain and the data is unclear. One point in the cancer plan was that the Government would collect the data on secondary breast cancer from 2026. We are almost halfway through 2026, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on how that is going and when we will see that data. Also, how frequently does she expect it to be published—will it be published monthly, quarterly, every half year or every year? What are her plans for that? There needs to be definition in order to do that, so I wonder if she has settled on that too.

Another point in the cancer plan is the desire to improve screening. Again, I commend the hon. Member for West Lancashire on her work on the cancer plan, but there are women in Lincolnshire waiting five weeks and more for referral to their appointment when they discover a breast lump, and we know that the longer it takes for diagnosis, the more likely metastasis is to occur. Could the Minister give more detail on the promise to expand screening? What does it look like? What workforce will be necessary and when will that be in place? What mammography machines or ultrasound machines might be needed? Are they to be bought and installed, and how quickly does she expect that to happen? For those who need genetic testing, what plans does she have to expand the availability of genetic testing, and what will the timescale be?

The cancer plan, which I am glad is very ambitious—it should be—will work only if it is delivered. It was published just over four months ago, but it is not clear what progress is being made or that the work is continuing at the necessary pace to deliver the ambitions we all want to see achieved. One thing slowing progress is the reorganisation of integrated care boards in response to the cutting of their budgets by 50%, and the Health Bill’s abolition of NHS England. The people who would be organising and planning are organising and planning something else. Some of them are leaving, so we are losing expertise, while others are being made redundant—or leaving before they are made redundant. That is disrupting the planning of our health services. Will the Minister comment on that?

As has been said, there has not been the same progress for treatment of lobular breast cancer as for other forms of breast cancer. The previous Conservative Government committed £20 million to the Moon Shot project, to research ways of advancing treatment of that particular form of cancer, which needs more attention than it has had of late. Will the Minister tell us whether this Government are committed to providing that money for that research?

Hospices provide amazing services for people towards the end of their lives, but, as we have heard in other debates in this Chamber, they are struggling. They have a lot of staff because theirs is a very person-delivered service, and they accrue extra national insurance costs from employing all those members of staff. I appreciate that the Government have put a lot of money into hospices, but that is capital money to enable them to redecorate, build extra bits, provide extra equipment. That is lovely, but it does not help if there are no staff to run the service and provide the care that the patients so desperately need. What discussions has the Minister had about the effects of national insurance contributions on hospices? Has she considered an exemption? What are her plans to help to support the hospice movement?

The hon. Member for West Lancashire referred to what happens when a patient has run out of options. As a doctor, I am always told that a doctor never runs out of treatments. Palliative treatment is treatment, so even when they run out of treatments, they are still providing a treatment. However, what happens when we run out of treatment that is active or likely to be successful in prolonging life or curing disease? It is important that research is supported and able to continue. I look forward to the Minister’s words on what the Government are doing to support research so that new drugs can come online. During the pandemic, we saw how quickly vaccines were brought through the pathway. What is gumming things up now? How do we speed it up so that people can get the necessary drugs more quickly?

What happens in the grey zone, when a drug is going into trial and is sort of but not quite available yet? We have compassionate use schemes, about which I asked an urgent question in the main Chamber this morning. Such schemes are used when individuals have reached the end of the treatment options and perhaps do not qualify for any of the trials that are currently available—in paediatrics, that could mean that they are a few days out of the age bracket—or perhaps the trials are full. Those schemes are also used when a patient received the drug in a trial, but the trial is finished and negotiations about the drug are ongoing. In some cases, the drug companies will provide those drugs to patients for free to help them.

Unfortunately, towards the end of last year, the Government decided to charge VAT on the deemed value of such drugs. That means the companies have to pay sometimes quite significant charges to give those drugs to patients. One large pharmaceutical company has pulled out of the compassionate use scheme, which means that its drugs are not available for the people who need them—that issue was raised by my hon. Friend Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). The enforcement of that tax by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been paused for review, but the liabilities remain.

We therefore have a situation in which some drug companies are pulling out and others are considering their position. People with secondary breast cancer, and those with other cancers and serious illnesses, cannot wait for the autumn Budget. They need the Government to make a decision to sort this problem out now. Only last month, the Government decided that they would take VAT off rides at Alton Towers. That is great, but if they can do that, they can sort this issue out as well, and they need to get on with it. Will the Minister raise the matter with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Treasury to see what she can do to help people who have no option other than these new and special drugs to keep their hope alive?

In summary, the cancer plan is ambitious, which is great—it has some great targets that I hope can be achieved—but we need to see delivery. I am looking to the Minister for the detail on how the plan will be delivered.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister allowed a couple of minutes before 4.30 pm for the mover to make some further comments, that would be really helpful.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for raising this important matter and securing the debate. They both spoke about their own breast cancer journeys very powerfully, and I thank them for sharing their personal experiences with us.

It is also personal to me, having gone through it not myself, but through my mother-in-law, who we lost to breast cancer almost 30 years ago. She was just 62, which is not much older than I am now. Thirty years ago, that age seemed a long way off, but now that I am 60, it does not seem very old at all. My father-in-law, who is in his nineties, is still with us, which made me realise how much life this terrible disease robbed her of. Her secondary breast cancer—like that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—was diagnosed 10 years after her primary breast cancer. That struck me and brought it back to mind. I was thinking how glad and happy I am that the treatment now is so much better than it was 30 years ago, and that my hon. Friend is very much still alive and kicking—and in great voice, as we have all heard today.

Losing my mother-in-law at such a young age spurred me on, as a new MP in 2005, to join the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer. I went on to be an officer and then chair for a number of years. Now that I am in government, I feel an immense responsibility resting on my shoulders. I want to do the right thing not just in memory of my mother-in-law, but for all hon. Members who have shared their stories and those of constituents and campaigners, and for all those I have met since I was first elected to Parliament.

This has been a very moving and informative debate, with so many excellent speeches from hon. Members. I particularly commend my predecessor as Public Health and Prevention Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, for her fantastic work on the national cancer plan. It was all the better for being led by someone not just with lived experience, but who was actually in the middle of her cancer treatment at the same time. How she was able to do that—there is a huge workload in this brief—on top of her treatment, while at the same time driving progress on the 10-year health plan, the HIV action plan and the men’s health plan, is testament to how focused, tough and brilliant she is. I am not afraid to admit that following in her footsteps is a challenge. I am thrilled that she is with us today, and we all witnessed her brilliance at first hand in her speech.

I want to come to the substance of the issues that hon. Members have raised. If I run out of time, or if there is anything that I miss, I and my officials will write to hon. Members, so they should not think that I have just ignored what they said. It will be responded to in due course.

I want to start with data. The more data we collect, the more we can empower patients to make informed choices about their care, but it is not just about giving patients a clearer picture, important though that is. The Government made data one of the five big bets of our 10-year health plan—I think that is the right terminology—because the NHS is a data superpower. Just as coal was the fuel of the first industrial revolution, data will power the life sciences revolution, and we can use datasets to help scientists make further breakthroughs in cancer research.

Better data is also important for researchers to understand the number of cohorts they have to work with. It is important for NHS commissioners, who will have a clearer idea of patient demand. We cannot improve something that we cannot measure. In the words of Jo Taylor, the late founder of METUPUK,

“We are only counted when we are dead”,

and that is just unacceptable. As part of Jo’s legacy, we now have a specific commitment in our national cancer plan to begin collecting data for recurrent cancers, starting with metastatic breast cancer. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for personally making sure that that commitment was there. Now that I have picked up her baton, as I said, I am determined to make sure we can make good on that promise.

The national disease registration service is working with NHS trusts to improve their reporting of non-primary cancers in the cancer outcomes and services dataset. I can update the House today that since the publication of the national cancer plan, the NDRS has made the collection and reporting of secondary breast cancer a key priority. It is co-ordinating with all partners, charities, teams of experts and trusts to properly collect data on secondary breast cancers at source. It is helping trusts to improve the way they collect data for things like disease progression, recurrence and metastatic spread.

In the meantime, the NDRS is teaming up with researchers at the University of Oxford to develop a new algorithm. This infers the numbers of metastatic disease by combining multiple routine datasets. In plain English, what it means is this: trusts routinely report all sorts of data to NHS England—imaging, chemo, radiotherapy. All that data comes into NHSE from different places across the country. It can then be linked to give us a good idea on numbers until we can get an even clearer picture through trust reporting.

We are already off to a good start because data was already starting to improve under this Government, even before the national cancer plan was published. Consecutive audits of metastatic breast cancer by the National Cancer Audit Collaborating Centre, or NATCAN, cover a greater number of people living with metastatic breast cancer. Data coverage of metastatic breast cancer is already improving, and the NDRS will also publish a baseline assessment of incidence and prevalence and the total number of people living with metastatic breast cancer by the end of this year. It will be the best assessment we have ever had.

Cancer patients deserve to have the finest minds in the country harnessing the data to make a difference. That is why we are also setting up a new health data research service by the end of this year. It will provide a secure single access point for researchers, including data relevant to cancer diagnosis, care and outcomes. That means that wherever they live in our country, whether Washington, Wokingham or Durham, scientists will be sitting on a treasure trove of data for their research. Our life sciences sector plan commits us to working with industry to accelerate growth in spending on innovative medicines. Just last year, a cutting edge oral targeted cancer therapy that helps to slow or stop cell growth was approved for treating advanced breast cancer on the NHS in England.

I turn to some specific points made by hon. Members. The hon. Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke about lobular breast cancer and the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I assure the House that Government funders are committed to continuing to work with researchers to support the development of fundable research proposals to drive a stronger understanding of the biology behind lobular breast cancer, as well as to develop effective treatments. In April, Lord Vallance and I, alongside the National Institute for Health and Medical Research Council representatives, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shot Project. It was a very interesting meeting, I must say. Lord Vallance will also host a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer this month—one of the commitments we made at that meeting.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire spoke about the cancer clinical trials accelerator. I assure her that the Department, NHS England and the NIHR are working hard to develop and set up the accelerator to the timeline set out in the national cancer plan.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me once again about clinical trials at Queen’s University Belfast and what discussions Ministers had had with Northern Ireland Ministers. I commit to writing to him with further information on that matter. His plea at the end for more screening, more funding and more saving of lives did not fall on deaf ears for anyone in this Chamber, I am sure.

It has been a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government today. I have spent the best part of 20 to 30 years—21 years of them in this place—fighting alongside campaigners on this issue, along with many others. Now I am in government, they are all at the forefront of my mind. When it comes to cancer, colleagues are pushing at an open door with me. I will never forget my roots as chair of the all-party group and as a daughter-in-law of someone lost to secondary breast cancer at far too young an age. The hon. Member for Wokingham has a very personal connection to this campaign, and the all-party group could not be in better hands with him as its chair.

Let me end by thanking all hon. Members for keeping me on my toes. If I have not responded to any points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), or by others, I commit to doing so in writing. I look forward to working with all Members in the months and years ahead as we take forward this important work.

16:27

[Clive Jones]

I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to this debate. Many shared their own personal experiences, and those of their constituents. I know that that can be a very difficult thing to share, so I commend everyone for their participation. The debate has made it clear that there is a real need for urgent action, and I hope that the Minister has taken note of the issues that have been shared.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the need to improve data, as several of us did, because we cannot support people properly without data. I think, from the Minister’s response, that she probably gets that, so that is really good. My hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) highlighted issues relating to lobular cancer and the need for specific pathways to treatment. They also mentioned the effect of cancer on families. I must say, still today, 18 years after I had to have it, the hardest conversation that I have ever had was with my 13-year-old and 14-year-old daughters to tell them that I had breast cancer. The effect that breast cancer has on families is immense.

We saw this afternoon one of the most passionate speeches in this House on breast cancer from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). She has been a really, really good—

16:29

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).