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.

NHS Capital Spending

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for securing this extremely important debate.

Let us make no mistake: what we are talking about today is a national scandal. Many parts of our hospitals are falling to pieces. That is not just political rhetoric; it is a statement about genuine risk. Some of my constituents, for example, use Frimley Park hospital, which is primarily built out of RAAC, and it has already lasted for twice as long as it was supposed to. In January, the National Audit Office reported that the most urgent RAAC-related phase of the new hospital programme would be completed at least two years later than originally planned, and could take even longer, despite the pressing safety risks posed by buildings with RAAC. We need to do better.

My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the challenges with capacity at his local hospital, St Helier. Such hospitals are suffering from many years of Conservative under-investment and neglect. The story is repeated across the country: crumbling buildings; leaky roofs; sewage leaks, in some cases; and equipment faults that delay diagnosis and care. That did not happen in just the last two years, so I hope the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), will show some contrition for the part that the Conservatives played in there being a lack of capital investment over many years, which allowed those conditions to develop. The promise of 40 new hospitals, which was made by the Conservatives but had nothing at all behind it, will not be forgotten for generations.

Labour is not addressing this crisis with the urgency that it demands. The response has been to delay the new hospital programme even further, which is a staggering miscalculation. It will cost the country billions to keep old—indeed, dying—hospitals on life support, including around £400 million for the Royal Berkshire hospital alone. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a governor of that hospital, and a family member works there as well.

The Royal Berkshire staff are hard-working, compassionate people, as are the doctors, nurses and other clinical professionals working across the country. Our NHS staff are truly the best of us. Despite the best efforts of the hospital trust, the conditions they work in are very poor. The building—parts of it almost 200 years old—is quite literally sinking. Cancer patients receive chemotherapy in a children’s ward from 1910. Wards and offices are inadequately ventilated. Parts of the hospital are poorly accessible, and 50 operations were cancelled in 18 months, not due to staff unavailability or incompetence or for medical reasons, but because the building was simply inadequate on the day. Labour’s response has been to make that hospital struggle on for at least another seven years, on top of the Conservatives’ already lengthy delay, at huge cost to both the taxpayer and patient dignity.

It is not a problem confined to the Royal Berkshire hospital. Between 2019 and April 2025, there were at least 5,000 cancellation incidents caused by crumbling infrastructure at our hospitals. These incidents are only recorded when the care of at least five patients is affected, so that is a minimum of 26,000 people who have had vital care delayed or cancelled simply because the hospital was not in an acceptable condition. Once we consider the incidents affecting fewer than five patients, the actual number may well be much higher.

We must also not forget those hospitals that are not part of the new hospital building programme. Yesterday, my staff spoke to an NHS consultant working in accident and emergency at such a hospital, who has asked not to be named. The consultant described an incident this very week where family members had to be moved out of the resuscitation relatives’ room at the hospital because raw sewage was flowing through the room. Simply imagine that: your loved one critically unwell in resuscitation—your whole world turned upside down—and in that moment, you are hurried away from a stream of vile effluent. It is a national disgrace that this is the reality of our NHS today. That happened just this week. There is no new hospital coming for those patients, or for that consultant. The Government must today commit the money needed to maintain our entire hospital estate properly.

Care, of course, starts in the community, before a patient ever reaches a hospital, but we all hear from our constituents that our primary care system is also not coping due to under-investment. In my constituency, we have seen thousands of new homes built in the last 10 years, but no new GP practice to serve those thousands of new residents, and I know that many Members will recognise that problem in their constituencies as well. The investment in facilities is just not keeping up with the reality on the ground. That is why I am fighting for a new GP practice at Arborfield Green, although the sad reality is that the lack of capital investment in this infrastructure and the incredibly complex commissioning rules stand in the way. I hope the Minister will have something to say about investing in primary care as well as hospitals.

Let us not forget the outdated equipment currently in use in our NHS. Data uncovered by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that 80% of hospitals are using outdated X-ray, MRI or radiotherapy equipment. Imaging is critical for the diagnosis of so many medical conditions. NHS England itself says that CT, MRI and X-ray machines need to be replaced every 10 years to be reliable, but 38 out of the 48 trusts that responded to the request for information reported having X-ray machines over that age in active use. Some 21 of them were using MRI machines that were more than 10 years old. Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust reported an X-ray machine that was 30 years old—older than some Members of this House. It should be a national scandal that lifesaving diagnoses are being left to equipment that we cannot safely rely on. Patients are at risk and staff pushed to breaking point.

I would like to recognise the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on radiotherapy. Like him, I was disappointed to see that the national cancer plan was not more ambitious in its investment in radiotherapy. Anyone who talks to him about this issue will hear about how outdated radiotherapy units are being pushed well beyond their life across the country. We must do better than that for our cancer patients. The national cancer plan, which I called for in this Chamber some 16 months ago, was a welcome step by the Government, but on radio- therapy investment—as with the new hospital programme —Labour has not met the moment.

At this point, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who was the Minister who made the national cancer plan happen. I am sorry that she has decided that she needs to stand down from her post. She did a really good job.

The Liberal Democrats would implement a 10-year capital investment programme that allows the NHS to plan for its future, not just its next budget cycle. That would include £10 billion to end the scandal of crumbling hospitals and GP practices, improving outcomes for patients and cutting daily costs for our national health service. We would establish a winter taskforce with a ringfenced £1.5 billion fund to deal with winter pressures, ending the cycle of raiding the capital budget just to cope with the latest predictable emergency. We have said on many occasions how that will be paid for. The question before the Minister today is not whether something needs to be done; we all know what needs to be done—investment on a huge scale—but the question is when. When will the Government deliver?

Brain Tumour Survival Rates

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this evening’s important debate. Brain cancer is a particularly nasty and lethal form of cancer, and one of the least improved cancers in terms of survival rates. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of adults and children under 40 and are largely unpreventable. After years of Conservative neglect of cancer care, the Government’s recent national cancer plan takes steps to address the crisis in cancer care. That is definitely to be welcomed, but it is clear that brain cancer care still needs urgent attention.

A big cause of low brain cancer survival rates is slow diagnosis. In England, 45% of patients are diagnosed in an emergency setting—over two times the rate of all other cancers. Emergency diagnosis means that patients often face worse chances of survival and fewer treatment options, especially options that avoid harm. The Government must act to ensure that brain cancer is caught earlier to give patients a better chance of survival. That is why the Government must speed up the diagnostic pathway by improving GP access to diagnostic imaging and improve the patchy access to MRI and CT scans.

Even when a patient gets a diagnosis, many experience delays in starting treatment. In 2024, 75% of brain cancer patients at the Royal Berkshire hospital near my constituency began treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral. That is below the standard expected proportion of 85%. Even more shocking is that, in 2023, 25% of brain cancer patients at the Royal Berks waited longer than 124 days to begin treatment after an urgent referral. That is just not good enough, which is why my colleagues, and many others in the House, are calling on the Government to introduce a guarantee for 100% of patients to start treatment for cancer within 62 days of an urgent referral. The Government must start to listen to the people who are calling for that.

A key step towards this aim is improving access to effective treatment. In the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board, which covers Wokingham, just 30% of cancer patients receive radiotherapy treatment within the 62-day treatment standard. This means that many brain cancer patients in Wokingham are missing out on the effective and timely treatment that would drastically improve their survival outcomes. To help address this, the Government need to replace ageing radiotherapy machines as soon as possible and invest in new ones, so that no one is denied access to treatment or has to travel far from home.

There is also a serious issue with equal access to new advanced treatments for brain cancer. Personalised immunotherapy vaccines have proven to be an effective treatment for brain cancer. This treatment, as well as advanced diagnostics and research, requires brain tissue from a patient to be flash-frozen to preserve DNA and RNA. It is then used to develop rounds of an immunotherapy vaccine. Due to a lack of nationwide regulations and practices on brain tissue freezing, however, there is a shameful inequality in brain cancer care. Sadly, the Royal Berkshire hospital and Frimley hospital, both used by my constituents, do not have the capability to flash-freeze or store brain tissue. As a result, many in Wokingham and across Berkshire cannot access advanced technologies such as personalised immunotherapy treatment and the more accurate genome sequencing that are key to attacking the cancer effectively.

This is why the Government must ensure equal access to high-quality tissue storage pathways across the country. It is not right that where someone lives affects the treatment they get, and thus their chances of survival. These steps to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment, along with investment in staff and research, will start to improve survival rates for the 12,700 people diagnosed with a brain tumour every year in the UK. Lastly, much has been mentioned about clinical trials in this debate. They are needed desperately, and it is my hope that Ministers will make this their personal priority in their discussions with drug companies in the next few months, and that we will see some real progress, with many more clinical trials starting in the next few years.

National Cancer Plan

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton]

Yes, I can confirm that we will continue to work with cancer charities. I am particularly delighted with the work we have done with Young Lives vs Cancer and other young people’s cancer charities, which have brought amazing insight and basically written the chapter on children and young people with cancer with the team. I would be delighted to continue that work.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I was the first MP in this Parliament to call for a national cancer plan back in October 2024, so I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for publishing the plan. There are some good things in it: the concentration on children and young people’s cancers; the concentration on rare and less-survivable cancers; and more desperately needed screening. Targets in the plan are also to be welcomed, but if they are to be met, there is a need for workforce expansion, especially in oncology, pathology, radiology and clinical nurse specialists. The extra cash that the Secretary of State has obtained for the plan from the Treasury is not enough to achieve all his ambitious plans right away. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister get from the Chancellor the money needed to make this plan a success?

[Ashley Dalton]

As I have already stated, the workforce is key. The workforce plan will be published in spring this year. As of November 2025, there are now 70% more staff in the key cancer professions of clinical oncology, gastroenterology, medical oncology, histopathology, clinical radiology, and diagnostic and therapeutic radiology than in 2010—we are starting to make inroads, although we know there is further to go. We will be driving that forward through this plan and the workforce plan, due in the spring.

Advanced Brain Cancer: Tissue Freezing

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for securing this important debate, and all other hon. Members who have contributed. I would also like to highlight the incredible work done by the campaigners for Owain’s law—you are doing a most remarkable campaign.

Owain was diagnosed with a grade 4 tumour in 2022 and sadly died in 2024. Despite showing success, Owain stopped receiving effective treatment because not enough of his brain tissue was frozen to make further immunotherapy vaccines. Owain’s wife, Ellie, is calling for fair and equal access to brain tissue freezing, enabling every patient to access new treatments and research. The Government need to listen to the campaign, to act and to invest in brain tumour freezing so that we can start to save more lives.

Brain cancer is already the biggest killer of people under 40, and 45% of brain cancers are diagnosed in an emergency setting, meaning that the cancer has progressed untreated and that the patient is more unlikely to tolerate treatment.

Given so many factors affect survival outcomes for brain cancer patients, the Government need to start improving treatment of brain cancer now. Most brain cancer patients in Wokingham cannot access advanced technologies, such as personalised immunotherapy cancer treatments that rely on frozen tissue. The Royal Berkshire NHS foundation trust and the Frimley Health NHS foundation trust do not have any medical-grade freezers suitable for storing tissue samples, and they have no access to the rapid freezing equipment suitable for brain tissue. That situation needs to change.

The cost of providing the right freezers would be small for each hospital trust. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and other Members who have today called for other tissues to be frozen, not just brain tissue.

Like many other Members today, I am really pleased to see the Minister in her place. I have a very simple question for her: can she confirm that equal access to high-quality tissue storage pathways will be addressed in the upcoming national cancer plan?

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

On a point of order, Mr Western. I want to make a clarification. In my response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), I mixed up quangos. I suggested that it was the fault of the MHRA that the Oncotherm machine was not in an NHS hospital. It is, of course, the fault of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. I would not want anybody to think that that machine has not been approved and registered by the MHRA.