Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, and I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this debate.

Today we must remember all the loved ones who were taken from us by covid, and all those who suffered so terribly during the pandemic and the lockdowns. It is for that reason that during the pandemic I proposed a covid memorial wood in my Wokingham constituency, where people could go to remember their loved ones. I am delighted that a wood of nearly 8,000 trees has been planted.

Those who suffered deserve not only our sympathy but our determination to learn every lesson from this tragic chapter in our country’s history. Time and again, the inquiry has confirmed the failure of the last Conservative Government. The Conservatives left our country vulnerable and unprepared. The British public will never forgive them for partying while communities were engulfed by grief, fear and isolation. Never can such a tragedy be repeated. We must learn the lessons from the inquiry and ensure we never return to a politics that ignores expertise and evidence. We cannot afford political leaders like those in Reform who would cut back vaccines, trash medical science and spread disinformation. Every party leader should commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations and to supporting the vaccines that helped to end lockdowns and save lives.

While today’s debate concerns module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics, I want to briefly touch on module 6, which examined the pandemic’s impact on adult social care. That report confirmed what bereaved families have long known: the last Conservative Government failed to prepare the county, and its failures on social care and years of neglect left the sector exposed, creating the conditions that allowed this horror to unfold. That is why the Liberal Democrats supported the bereaved families’ call for the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be stripped of his place on the Privy Council.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could we concentrate on the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report?

[Clive Jones]

Returning to module 4, the inquiry highlighted one of the genuine successes of the pandemic response: the vaccine roll-out. The roll-out was, in the inquiry’s words, “an extraordinary feat”. The success belongs to our scientists, NHS staff, community pharmacists and volunteers who delivered around 132 million jabs in 2021 alone and created the largest vaccine programme in British history. The vaccine saved almost 475,000 lives in England and Scotland. We should never forget that and we must never allow anyone to rewrite history.

Yet the inquiry was equally clear that trust in vaccines must be rebuilt. Childhood vaccination rates have been falling for years, leaving more people vulnerable to preventable disease and increasing pressure on our health service. We must listen to our scientists, not to conspiracy theorists. Nigel Farage and Reform are amplifying the dangerous anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with Donald Trump.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you please refer to Members of Parliament by their seat? You have been here quite some time, so you should probably know that.

[Clive Jones]

Apologies, Mr Stuart. We cannot allow Trump’s America to become Farage’s Britain. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation, alongside a new drive to deliver record vaccination rates. Vaccines should be brought closer to communities through trusted local venues, including church halls and community centres.

The best way to honour the people we lost is to learn the lessons from the inquiry, defend science, rebuild trust in vaccinations and ensure that when the next crisis comes, Britain is not so unprepared.

Smoke-free UK

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this debate.

Tackling cancer must be a national priority. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer and is often caused by smoking. It accounts for about 35,000 deaths every year—approximately one in five cancer fatalities—and causes suffering and heartbreak in communities across the country.

I know at first hand the impact that smoking can have, as my father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking at around the age of 14. It was fashionable; everybody did it. Serving in the second world war, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He could not give them up and continued smoking for the rest of his life—often 60-plus a day. It eventually killed him at the very early age of 63. That is why the ambition of a smoke-free Britain is so important to me.

For that reason, I welcomed that Tobacco and Vapes Act, which passed earlier this year. It introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, which means that future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. That is particularly important because, although overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14% to 18% since 2023.

The Act is an important step forward in trying to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking, but legislation alone is not enough. Experts have rightly raised concerns about enforcement, and the decade of cuts to public health under the previous Government impeded smoking cessation services. The 2022 Khan review warned that, without further action, England would miss its smoke-free target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas not becoming smoke-free until 2044. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and for renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits.

Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country. It claims about 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and it kills up to two thirds of its long-term users. It is also the leading cause of lung cancer.

Too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. Such delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four-week delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates. For lung cancer patients, early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can mean the difference between life and death.

Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the Government’s national cancer plan. The ambition to meet all cancer waiting time standards by 2029 is positive. That includes the target of all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time.

I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but that is a massive ask because of the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses. The Liberal Democrats would recruit 3,000 additional cancer nurses, doubling the current workforce. Will the Government commit to doing that? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, but particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced.

These measures would help to tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking-related disease. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce both smoking rates and the harm that smoking causes.

There is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society annually an estimated £44.8 billion through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking-related fires. Those costs far outweigh the £7.5 billion a year of revenue generated through tobacco taxation. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds.

A smoke-free Britain should be an ambition shared across the House. Reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high-quality treatment are goals that should transcend party politics.

To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. Can she provide an update on progress towards offering opt-out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers to quit? Can she also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament and that the ringfence around the public health grant will remain in place?

National Care Service

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the national care service and thank her for early sight of it.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that everyone deserves to be able to live independently with dignity and to receive the care they need in their own home when possible. Hundreds of thousands of people are desperately waiting for the care they need and 13,000 people every day are left stranded in hospital beds, unable to leave because their care packages have not been put in place.

One in seven people over 65 now pay more than £100,000 for their care in their lifetime. Spiralling social care costs have left many councils, such as my own in Wokingham, struggling to fulfil other basic services that residents want to see. Social care services are in crisis and have been for too long. That has been recognised for many years by Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and a carer himself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he must refer to his party leader by his constituency, not his name.

[Clive Jones]

Apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised from his own experience that social care needs fixing. The Liberal Democrats are keen to work on a cross-party basis to fix social care. Failure to act on social care would be a catastrophe for families, for the NHS and for local services.

The Liberal Democrats have set the Government three tests for the social care reforms. First, they must put family carers front and centre, with guaranteed rights for every carer, and replace the broken carer’s allowance system. Secondly, the reforms must include a universal safety net of care, including free personal care. Thirdly, the Government must protect people from catastrophic costs so that family finances are not decimated and people do not have to lose the family home.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister committed yesterday to arranging another round of cross-party talks to fix social care. The Liberal Democrats will engage in those discussions and we urge others in the House to do the same.

[Alison McGovern]

The House will have heard the interchange between the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister yesterday. I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the rather extreme impact of this situation on the NHS. We all have a choice; we cannot leave it as it is.

Health Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I would like to speak to new clause 137. Cancer Research UK estimates that, in the six months since the national cancer plan was published, over 168,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in England. The number of those diagnosed is at a record high and this is projected to continue. Almost one in two of us will get cancer in our lifetime, and no one in this country is untouched by the disease. I welcome the Government’s ambition to improve cancer outcomes in the national cancer plan. Alongside my amendment to the Health Bill, my current private Member’s Bill seeks to guarantee that the Government make progress towards delivering these targets and are held to account by Parliament on that.

Over the past five decades, cancer survival has more than doubled because of lifesaving research, earlier detection and cutting-edge treatments. However, in the last decade progress has slowed, and the 10-year cancer survival index was better in the early 2000s than in the 2010s, so we are in danger of going backwards. The national cancer plan commits to meeting cancer waiting times targets by the end of this Parliament. The previous Government failed to do that, and I really hope that this Government will manage it. It is also important that these targets are met, alongside a full range of commitments in the plan.

The Health and Care Act 2022 required the Secretary of State to include cancer outcome objectives in the annual mandate set by the Secretary of State for NHS England, and those outcome objectives explicitly took priority over other cancer objectives. I have tabled this amendment because the current Health Bill abolishes that mandate, including the previous statutory requirement for cancer outcome objectives to be prioritised over other cancer objectives, and a similar duty has not been replicated elsewhere in the Bill.

With the removal of the statutory requirement to prioritise cancer outcomes over other cancer objectives in the health system, there is a very real concern that progress on cancer outcomes risks being deprioritised amid the competing priorities of a Department facing many external pressures. I am therefore seeking assurances from the Minister that, despite the disruption of the ongoing merger and the removal of the cancer outcomes clause, progress on delivering the transformation laid out in the national cancer plan will be delivered, and that it remains a priority for the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to guarantee that the capacity needed to drive forward this essential work on cancer is protected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Kate Osborne.

Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. When I met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team in April, their determination to improve outcomes for patients was unmistakeable.

The debate is also an opportunity to remember Dr Susan Michaelis on the first anniversary of her passing. After being diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer in 2011, Susan devoted her final years to advancing research into this awful disease. In 2023, she founded the Lobular Moon Shot Project, and in December 2024, many colleagues and I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate to echo the project’s call for greater investment in lobular breast cancer research. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will be able to give us some idea of whether the Government listened to us all those months ago and whether they are listening today, because very little appears to have changed.

Invasive lobular breast cancer is the second most common type of breast cancer, with between 7,500 and 8,000 people diagnosed every year in the UK. That is around 22 women every day. Despite accounting for around one in seven breast cancer diagnoses, this form of the disease remains under-researched with no specifically designed treatment. As a result, patients are often treated with therapies known to be less effective for lobular tumours, increasing the risk of metastatic disease, greater toxicity and poorer outcomes.

That is not inevitable. With targeted research, outcomes can improve. The Lobular Moon Shot Project is calling for £20 million over five years to fund lobular-specific research. In the grand scheme of things, £20 million over five years is not a lot of money, and that investment would deepen understanding of the disease, support the development of targeted therapies, and improve diagnosis and treatment for thousands of patients. Without it, progress will remain far too slow.

The project estimates that 3.75 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer over the next decade, making need for action so very urgent. The investment also represents good value. Modelling by the Lobular Moon Shot Project suggests that preventing or delaying metastasis in even a relatively small number of patients would more than offset the proposed £20 million investment through reduced treatment costs. I know that many across the cancer community are eagerly awaiting the Government’s workforce plan. Can the Minister update the House on when it might be published?

In closing, I urge the Government to support the Lobular Moon Shot Project and commit £20 million to improve research, diagnosis and treatment for invasive lobular breast cancer. I also once again pay tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, without whose tireless campaigning, I doubt we would be here today debating this issue or pressing for the change that so many patients and families deserve.

NHS Breast Screening

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for presenting this important debate and the Minister for attending. I congratulate Gemma Reeves on organising this well-supported petition and her campaigning on this very important issue. Being diagnosed with breast cancer is a bewildering and terrifying experience for far too many people, as many of us know. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK. Around 60,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and one in seven women will receive such a diagnosis during their lifetime. Early diagnosis is crucial. Detecting breast cancer sooner gives people the best chance of successful treatment and ultimately saves lives.

In my own case, I had to visit my GP twice before receiving a diagnosis. Between visits to the GP, the cancer spread to my lymph glands. The result of that spread still causes issues for me today, 18 years later. Thankfully my treatment was successful, but many others are not so fortunate because of delays in diagnosis. More than 95% of people diagnosed at stage 1 survive for at least five years compared with around 25% diagnosed at stage 4. That is why breast screening is so important.

The Marmot review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1,300 deaths every year, yet uptake remains too low, particularly in England, where rates lag behind the devolved nations and pre-pandemic levels. Almost 30% of eligible women are not attending screening appointments. Around 600,000 women are missing the opportunity for early detection. Cancer Research UK found that concerns about pain are the most common barrier to attending. Others miss invitations, struggle to find the time or remain unconvinced of the benefits. Uptake is even lower in deprived communities, worsening existing inequalities in cancer outcomes. In England in 2025, screening uptake was 65% in the most deprived areas, compared with 75% in the least deprived areas.

The Government need to work on ideas to improve access to screening, particularly where uptake is lowest. Simple measures such as follow-up invitations, culturally appropriate information and community-based pop-up screening services could make a real difference by meeting people where they are and at times that work for them. Will the Minister outline what plans the Government might have to increase screening uptake, particularly through community-based services?

Improving uptake alone, though, is not enough. Serious workforce shortages and outdated equipment continue to delay diagnosis and treatment. Too much diagnostic equipment is ageing or even no longer fit for purpose. Many areas face shortages of radiotherapy capacity, faulty mammography equipment and insufficient staff to operate machines consistently. I have long called for greater investment in the NHS workforce, including during a debate in Westminster Hall last year. Although I welcome the Government’s national cancer plan, the commitment to provide 28 new radiotherapy machines falls well short of what is actually needed. Instead, the Government should be looking to provide at least 200 additional machines; that is what is required to tackle the backlog and ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for a 10-year capital investment programme so that every cancer patient can benefit from faster, more accurate diagnostics and treatment.

What further plans do the Government have to invest in both the workforce and the equipment needed to improve breast cancer outcomes? We know that breast cancer screening works and that early diagnosis saves lives. Now the Government must ensure that everyone can benefit by improving uptake and providing the investment that our cancer services urgently need.

National Lung Cancer Screening Programme

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

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

Lung cancer is a rapidly fatal disease that kills nearly 33,000 people in the UK every year. Fortunately, targeted lung cancer screening has become one of the NHS’s real success stories, with Lord Darzi highlighting it as the only initiative across all cancers that has improved rates of early-stage diagnosis in recent years. Screening is without doubt the single biggest intervention in improving lung cancer survival. When the UK Lung Cancer Coalition was launched in 2005, five-year survival stood at around 8% which was among the lowest rates in Europe. The UKLCC has now set an ambition of 35% of patients surviving five years after diagnosis by 2035—a target once thought to be impossible, but now within reach thanks to screening.

The Government’s decision to roll out fully the targeted national lung cancer screening programme in England for people aged 55 to 74 with a smoking history was a major milestone. To date, that programme has identified more than 10,600 lung cancers, with over 75% diagnosed at an early, treatable stage, compared with just 28% before screening was introduced. Without doubt, lung cancer screening is saving lives. It is cancer prevention in action and exemplifies the shift toward earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS 10-year plan. I place on record my thanks to the NHS cancer programme team, lung cancer advisers and the lung cancer screening clinical expert group for delivering the fastest roll-out of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world.

The benefits of screening extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since I applied for this debate, the Department has committed in the national cancer plan to a timetable for the full roll-out of the programme. That is a significant achievement. The inclusion of screening in the NHS app is another welcome step, but we cannot be complacent simply because a roll-out is promised in a plan. Will the Government reaffirm their commitment to a national roll-out timetable and ensure that the programme continues at pace? The national cancer plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030. That timetable matters because any slowdown risks reversing progress on early diagnosis. Unlike other national screening programmes, lung cancer screening does not yet have guaranteed funding beyond 2030. If this programme is to remain stable and effective, it needs protected long-term funding.

We must also continue to evaluate reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping to reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation. That progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure that hard-to-reach populations are not left behind. Given the importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section 7A arrangements with ringfenced funding beyond 2030? There is also concern about maintaining political momentum. With both drivers behind the national cancer plan no longer in post and Cabinet changes expected in the next few weeks, many in the cancer community are understandably concerned about whether the commitment will continue. I am sure the Minister will reaffirm his commitment.

England is leading the way, but early detection must not become a postcode lottery across the UK. Wales is preparing to launch a programme in 2027, but Scotland and Northern Ireland remain significantly behind. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition is supporting discussions in both nations later this year to understand the barriers and encourage implementation. Lung cancer is the UK’s biggest cancer killer. Every eligible person, regardless of where they live, should have access to the same opportunities for early diagnosis. I urge the devolved Governments to learn from England’s experiences and introduce screening as quickly as possible. Will the Minister engage with counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to encourage progress towards UK-wide implementation?

There are several threats to the programme’s success. First, there are growing concerns about integrated care board interference and the lack of ringfenced funding. Cost-cutting pressures on ICBs threaten to undermine progress. There are reports that high-performing screening teams—some seeing 55 patients a day—are being disrupted, and that screening resources are being diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening, and local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Will Ministers issue clear guidance to ICBs to prevent interference in delivery? Will they guarantee that screening funding is to be ringfenced and used solely for its intended purposes? Will they ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance?

Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns. The programme’s roll-out, data systems and clinical governance arrangements require continuity, and many charities and organisations across the cancer sector are concerned about potential loss of expertise during organisational change. What safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight throughout the transition?

Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest threats to the programme being sustained. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics, yet workforce planning has not kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030. Timely diagnostic and treatment services must be available so that patients diagnosed with early-stage disease can access potentially curative treatment. Demand for thoracic surgery is also rising, as early-stage lung cancers are often best treated surgically. Without sufficient capacity, opportunities to cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPs remains important too.

Around one in five lung cancers occur in people who have never smoked—indeed never-smoked lung cancer is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide—but smoking cessation remains a vital part of the screening programme. Smoking causes around 72% of lung cancer cases in the UK, making cessation support one of the most cost-effective interventions available. The British Thoracic Society has called for at least one specialist tobacco adviser in every hospital. As the Government pursues its smoke-free 2030 ambitions, the NHS has a critical role to play in helping people to quit smoking.

The Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges in biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment. As I have repeatedly argued in this House, the national cancer plan can succeed only if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the Government publish their delayed workforce plan and how will they support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening? Will Ministers commit to increase training places in radiology, pathology and thoracic surgery?

Lung cancer screening is one of the most effective public health interventions introduced in recent years. It is saving lives, reducing inequalities and shifting diagnosis toward earlier, more treatable stages of the disease, but its future success depends on stability, protecting funds, a sustainable workforce, robust Government and UK-wide implementation. The Government have an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming outcomes for thousands of people. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition believes that doing so is essential if we are to achieve the ambition of a 35% five-year survival rate by 2035.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones]

I would just like to mention a few of the things that hon. Members have spoken about. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to pay tribute to the Government for their work on lung cancer screening. That is an outstanding success, but screening still needs more support from the Government because, as he says, screening saves lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talked about lung cancer being horrific and deadly, and he spoke about his constituent John, who probably thought, when he got his diagnosis, “This is going to be horrific and deadly for me.” Because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him, so that is really good. My hon. Friend also talked about the speed and quality of treatment, and how important it is that we are quick with our diagnoses, that we are quick with our treatment and that our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is absolutely right that early detection is crucial in lung cancer treatment, as he knows from being a junior doctor once upon a time. He is also right to say that the origin of the screening programme was under the Conservatives in 2023, and he is right to join other Members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom.

I thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we asked him. I know that he is here on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is, I know, a real champion for improving cancer care in this country. I think it is great that the Government are committing £650 million for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2030, but what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is the Minister able to make a commitment that the Department will speak to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England, or does he need to speak to the Under-Secretary of State? We did not get a guarantee that lung cancer—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I just want to briefly put on the record that I will discuss that with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and we will write to the hon. Gentleman with an update on the work we are doing across the regional Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you for your intervention, Minister, and your clarification. But you did not need to intervene because I am sure—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for quite a while now and knows that I am not responsible for anything. Please address the Minister through the Chair.

[Clive Jones]

I apologise, Sir Alec. The Minister did not need to intervene. I am sure he will take that message back to his colleague.

What we would like to see, which was not mentioned in the Minister’s speech, is a guarantee that lung cancer screening funding will be ringfenced and used only for lung cancer screening. There was no comment on the changes in the integrated care boards and NHS England or on what safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight during the organisational changes. I am sure the Minister and other Ministers know that is a big concern for a lot of charities. There was no mention of expanding radiology. A lot of people who talk about cancer, including Members of Parliament and cancer charities, know that there has to be a big expansion of radiography sooner rather than later.

Finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting, Sir Alec, and for pulling me up on my mistake. I shall endeavour to do better next time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

Secondary Breast Cancer

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Ophthalmology waiting lists have fallen since we have taken office. Average waiting times have reduced, and 18-week performance has improved. ICBs have the flexibility to commission services across specialties within a fixed financial envelope, and may use contract levers to manage that activity. That is good management of public money to achieve the outcomes we want to see.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T4. Last week, the Secretary of State announced £10 million for the Royal Berkshire hospital to fund a new site, which is very welcome news. After years of Conservative neglect, £400 million is needed to maintain the existing Royal Berks until rebuilding starts in 2039. What is the Minister doing to support the hospital and its excellent staff to help fix its many maintenance issues?

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted that, as well as announcing the £10 million needed to purchase the new site for the Royal Berkshire, we are investing in the existing estate; that is what local residents deserve. I was delighted to make that announcement last week with our brilliant Labour Reading council team. It once again underlines that Labour councils work much better with a Labour Government, and people should remember that on 7 May.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this very important debate.

First, I would like to recognise the work done by organisations such as SUDC UK that have campaigned on this issue to raise awareness of a very tragic problem. Their work is even more admirable given that so many of the people involved have themselves been affected by SUDC. The loss of a child is one of the worst things that can happen to a parent, but to lose a child and never know why they passed away must be agonising.

Sadly, SUDC is an issue that hits many families across the UK—around 40 children are lost to it every year. At the start of this year, I met two constituents whose son passed away from sudden unexpected death in childhood in 2024. I was struck by their bravery to share their story with me in the face of such tragedy. Hearing about the pain of losing their child and not knowing why, I was struck again by their strength and determination that something needed to be done. In my meeting with them, it was made clear that a serious lack of research and awareness around SUDC has left parents without support or answers.

The parents are calling for research to focus: on detailed post-mortem studies; assessing hidden biological vulnerabilities by focusing on genomic sequencing and family history; neurology and sleep-related mechanisms; and environmental and situational factors. Sadly, most active research appears to be taking place in the US, with very little happening here in the UK. I call on the Government to remove barriers to global research talent coming to the UK, and commit to a decade-long programme of public investment in research and development.

Shockingly, SUDC UK found that just half of the families affected by SUDC were assigned a bereavement key worker. Many parents had distressing experiences when dealing with authorities who offered little support. To increase support for families, Liberal Democrats are calling for the funding for bereavement support payments to be doubled, reversing cuts by the previous Government.

I would like to end by again thanking my constituents for giving me their time to share their story with me and highlighting the clear need for urgent change.