Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I will come to my right hon. Friend in a moment.

[Gregory Stafford]

The Secretary of State mentioned the need for more medical staff across the world and, of course, in this country as well. At the general election, he pledged to double the number of medical school places by 2030. Is that still a commitment, and how far has he got with it?

[Wes Streeting]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has got his chronology slightly wrong. As shadow Health Secretary, I proposed that we should double the number of undergraduate medical school places. That policy was poached by the then Conservative Government, who made modest progress with it. We then came into government, looked at their long-term workforce plan and concluded that it was not a particularly long-term workforce plan, and we are revising it as we speak. The number of medical school places will be determined by future need. We will publish our long-term workforce plan in the not-too-distant future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

At the heart of the Bill is a simple test: does the Bill improve care for patients? Every delay in training, every cancelled clinic and every rota gap caused by workforce instability ultimately lands on the patient. It means longer waits, greater travel distances and, in too many cases, care that comes too late.

I was recently contacted by my Farnham and Bordon constituent, Dr R, as I will call her, who is a UK-trained medical graduate. Like thousands of others, she completed her studies in good faith, expecting a clear and credible pathway into the NHS. Instead, she now finds herself in a system where non-training posts are disappearing, competition ratios for training places are rising sharply and the holding pattern roles that once allowed junior doctors to remain clinically active while reapplying have all but vanished.

This is not a niche concern affecting a handful of individuals; it is a systemic failure that directly impacts patients. When trained doctors are unable to progress, fewer reach consultant and GP level in the years ahead. Services become overstretched, continuity of care is lost and waiting lists grow even longer. That is why I support the intention behind the Bill. Prioritising UK medical graduates, ensuring that the UK foundation programme is genuinely delivered in the United Kingdom and restoring confidence in the medical training pipeline are all necessary steps if we are serious about rebuilding NHS capacity for the benefit of patients.

I have supported amendments to this Bill because they strengthen those aims. They ensure that UK medical graduates are properly recognised as such, that training programmes are UK-based in substance rather than just name, and that allocation of training places is grounded firmly in merit, clinical knowledge, aptitude and performance. Patients, quite rightly, expect their doctors to be selected on ability and doctors expect fairness, and those principles should command support across this House. I also welcome new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which addresses growing concern among doctors and patients about the erosion of merit-based progression. When merit is undermined, morale suffers; when morale suffers, retention suffers, performance suffers, and ultimately patient safety suffers.

As such, the context of this Bill matters. Resident doctors have received cumulative pay rises approaching 30% over recent years—among the highest in the public sector. Despite this, industrial action has continued. It is increasingly clear that the BMA is determined to extract every possible concession from the Government, using sustained disruption as leverage. While I do not align myself with some of the Secretary of State’s more inflammatory language, I do share the realisation he has belatedly reached: that repeated above-inflation pay settlements have not brought this dispute to an end, and that further concessions risk rewarding brinkmanship rather than restoring stability for patients.

However, in pressing its case so aggressively, the BMA has inadvertently shone a spotlight on a genuine and serious problem in the system: a broken training and progression pathway that leaves UK doctors without secure routes into the NHS. That problem is real, it affects patients, and it must be addressed regardless of the outcome of pay negotiations. That is precisely why this Bill matters and why it must not be treated as a bargaining chip, yet that is exactly the risk created by the way in which the Bill is drafted. It will come into force only when the Secretary of State gives permission. In theory, that may appear sensible; in practice, it allows a patient-benefiting reform to be delayed, diluted, or deployed as leverage in negotiations.

Before Christmas, Ministers openly discussed this legislation in the context of talks with the BMA. The implication was clear: progress on training reform was conditional. Now, months later, with industrial action ongoing, it appears that the same dynamic may be emerging again. That approach undermines confidence among doctors and, far more importantly, undermines care for patients. If a measure will improve the NHS for patients and doctors alike, it should be implemented because it is right, not because it is tactically useful. That leads me to a number of questions for the Minister to answer when she responds, which are all grounded in patient outcomes.

Patients need capacity and certainty. They need more doctors progressing through training, not further delays and ambiguity. If the Government genuinely believe that prioritising UK graduates will strengthen the workforce, why is the commencement of this Bill discretionary at all? What assurance can the Minister give patients that these reforms will not be delayed indefinitely while negotiations continue? Patients have already endured significant disruption from industrial action—hundreds of thousands of appointments and operations have been cancelled or rescheduled. Without further pay concessions, can the Minister explain how this Bill will reduce the risk of future disruption, or is she effectively accepting that patients may face continued instability?

There is also the question of scale. The BMA itself has said that the Bill does not go far enough to close the gap between applicants and available training posts. What assessment has been made of how many UK graduates will still be unable to access foundation or specialty training even after this legislation is passed, and what will that mean for patient access to care in the coming years? Patients in many parts of the country already struggle to access GPs, psychiatrists and emergency medicine specialists. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister ensure that these reforms do not inadvertently worsen shortages in hard-to-recruit specialties or underserved areas?

Finally, there is the question of credibility. If this Bill is genuinely good for patients, good for workforce stability and good for the NHS, why should its implementation depend on a ministerial decision at some undefined point in time? Why not give doctors and patients certainty by bringing it into force immediately on Royal Assent? This House has a responsibility to put patients first, not leave patient care hostage to industrial negotiations. That is why I strongly support amendment 1, which would ensure that the Bill comes into force at the moment of Royal Assent. It removes unnecessary delays, ambiguity, and the risk that these reforms will be postponed indefinitely while workforce and pay disputes continue. UK medical graduates, hospitals and training bodies need certainty that the rules will apply from day one, so that allocations, protections for those trained on military postings, and fairness measures can begin to operate without delay. The amendment would ensure that reforms designed to strengthen transparency, meritocracy and the workforce will take effect when they are needed most. That clarity is particularly important given the absence of a published NHS workforce plan.

We need certainty for doctors that delivers stability for services, which in turn delivers better patient care and better outcomes. That is the standard by which this Bill should be judged, and it is the standard it must meet.

Domestic Abuse-related Deaths: NHS Prevention

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this important debate and his characteristically well-informed speech. His passion and knowledge as a GP bring a real benefit to this Chamber. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on her appointment as the Government’s adviser on violence against women and girls, and her excellent and impassioned speech. I am sure her ideas will be of great benefit to the Department and the Government as a whole.

This is a necessary debate, but it is also uncomfortable. The figures before us describe not merely a system under strain, but a system that is unfortunately failing too many women and children. If we are serious about change, we must be honest about responsibility and delivery. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for the experience she brought to her speech. Her discussion of honour-based violence, alongside the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), was very prescient.

I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for telling us about her experiences. We were all interested to hear more about the IRIS system she mentioned in her constituency. As ever, I welcome the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) giving us a perspective from Northern Ireland. Sir John, despite the fact that you have not spoken in this debate, it is worth noting your campaign on Holly’s law, which would implement a mandatory register of abuse against domestic animals, because that abuse is often a precursor to or goes alongside the abuse of humans. Thank you for your work on that.

Abuse happens across this country, and none of us is untouched by it. In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, I think of the horrendous case of Alan Jermey, who strangled his partner Kirsty Wilson to death and set her alight as their two small children slept upstairs. Cases like that bring this issue home to all of us.

The Minister will know that the NHS has more contact with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse than any other public service, which puts it in a unique position to intervene early. It also gives it a responsibility to deliver. The Department has set out ambitious plans around alcohol harm, neighbourhood health services and better access to support, and those ambitions are welcome, but ambition must be judged against outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a growing gap nationally between ministerial intent, which is welcome, and the frontline reality.

The Office for National Statistics found that 6% of women aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse, and the police recorded more than 1.35 million domestic abuse-related crimes and incidents last year. The consequences are often fatal. There were 108 domestic homicide victims that year, 83 of whom were women. Among adult female homicide victims, six in 10 deaths were the result of domestic homicide, almost all at the hands of a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic abuse is also a significant driver of suicide, as we have heard: between 2020 and 2024, 98 suspected suicides, including of children, followed domestic abuse. This is not a marginal issue; it is systemic.

The Government’s freedom from violence and abuse strategy is welcome but its impact will be undermined by persistent failures in delivery. Training remains inconsistent, referral pathways are unclear and staff lack the time and capacity to act. The evidence is clear. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in June 2025, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse looked at domestic abuse-related death reviews published in 2024 and found that 89% contained at least one recommendation for healthcare professionals or the wider health system. Time and again, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, opportunities for intervention within the NHS were missed.

Yet, at precisely the moment when that learning must be embedded, the Government are reorganising the NHS, abolishing NHS England and cutting integrated care board budgets. Standing Together has warned that these changes risk weakening domestic abuse and sexual violence protection work at the local level, including in training, co-ordination and follow through. A system that is being restructured, distracted and under financial pressure cannot deliver the prevention we all want. In Surrey, the police receive around 19 domestic abuse calls every day—domestic abuse is now more prevalent than shoplifting—so these systematic failures play out in real time in our communities.

I want to briefly speak about a young woman who lived in my constituency, Skye Nicholls, who died in 2023 at the age of just 22 after nearly two years of coercive control and abuse by her ex-partner. I have spoken to her family and friends, who are campaigning for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse. One of them told me that, too often, the focus remains on visible injuries while psychological abuse is underestimated or dismissed, even though its effects often last far longer than physical harm. For family and friends, mental health support is frequently fragmented or absent, despite them often being the first to spot the warning signs.

Prevention does not begin at the point of crisis; it begins with early, trauma-informed intervention. NICE guidance clearly sets out how NHS staff should respond to domestic abuse, but guidance alone does not save lives. Women’s Aid’s 2025 report found that just over half of referrals into community-based domestic abuse services were rejected—nearly a quarter because services could not even contact the victim. When support is reduced to just phone lines and signposting, women unfortunately fall through the cracks.

Detection is really important. Accident and emergency is where the physical signs of this abuse are seen but, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, primary care is often the first point of contact. We must use the expertise of GPs and other primary care services and give them the time to effectively identify, intervene and support those victims.

The NHS cannot act alone. The justice system must also command public confidence, which is why the early release scheme for serious offenders, including rapists and murderers, is so damaging. It sends entirely the wrong signal to victims and undermines trust in the institutions meant to protect them. We as the Conservatives will continue to oppose that policy.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, recognised children as victims in their own right, published violence against women and girls strategies, and invested significantly in victims’ services, mental health and suicide prevention, but we are honest enough to say that legislation alone is not enough. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has shown that only 6% of police-recorded domestic abuse cases result in a conviction, and only one in five victims feel confident reporting abuse. That demands competence and delivery, not the constant structural upheaval we are going to see in both the justice and health systems.

We made good strides in this area and I genuinely believe that the current Ministers in the Department are doing their level best to move it forwards. I think we all agree that there is much more to do, but where the Government are making those strides, we as the Conservatives will support them full-throatedly. I close with three questions to the Minister.

First, I welcome the Government’s announcement of a 5% funding uplift, but given rising costs and national insurance increases, how much of that is a real-terms increase and how much will go directly to frontline services for victims? Secondly, when will mandatory safeguarding and domestic abuse training for all NHS staff formally begin? What will its roll-out look like and when will the entire workforce have completed it? Finally, what assessment has the Department made of the case for mandatory psychological injury assessments following a police report of domestic abuse, to ensure that victims receive early, trauma-informed support?

We will not prevent violence against women by abolishing institutions, cutting local capacity and releasing dangerous men early. We will prevent it by enforcing the law, backing the frontline and putting victims, not systems, first.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

We need to be very careful about our language, in line with Dr Cass’s report. We are talking about children who are presenting with gender dysphoria and in gender distress. The Government support moving away from the medical intervention model towards a holistic approach to care based on the evidence, and that has cross-party support more generally, although I am not entirely sure of the position of the Liberal Democrats on supporting it. That is the model with which we are progressing. On the wider issues with regard to support for children and young people, particularly as they present across the board, this Government are investing much more than anyone else has indicated that they would in support for all services.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Part of the trial is to ask the child participants the Avon longitudinal study of parents and carers romantic relationships questionnaire. Is the Minister as concerned as I am that children under the age of 13 will be asked sexually explicit questions?

[Karin Smyth]

I think all Members across the House are concerned about the distress with which young people are coming forward for all of these services, and the need to support them and their families. Again, it is important that all parts of this trial follow clear ethical and clinical guidelines.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that point is not lost on the BMA. On the Labour Benches, we are the party of labour. We were created by the trade union movement to represent the interests of working people. That has been our calling for more than a century, since this party was founded. We have shown through our actions, not just our words, that this is a party in government who are committed to defending and extending the rights of working people, to improving pay and conditions, to clamping down on exploitation, and to making sure that this is a Government with and for the people.

The BMA has a willing partner with this Government. I sometimes feel like the Government have changed, the policies have changed and the approach has changed, but the BMA’s tactics towards us have stayed the same. I understand their cynicism about politics and their grievances with the situation they are working in, but I ask them also to recognise the progress we have made when we work together. There is an opportunity confronting them now to make further progress and I urge them to seize it.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

These strikes will have a massive effect on my constituents in Farnham and Bordon. I am already getting emails from constituents who are concerned about the fact that their operations will be cancelled. The BMA is being entirely irrational and it holds the lion’s share of the blame for this situation, but the Secretary of State also has to take some responsibility for what is going on. If he gives the doctors a 29% pay rise with no strings attached, it is absolutely no surprise that they come back for more. I welcome the 4,000 extra places. I would like to press him on exactly where those 4,000 places will come. Would it not be better to have published that in the workforce plan, which is continually delayed by his Department? When will that workforce plan actually come about?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I must say that a bout of collective amnesia has swept the Opposition Benches, because the Conservatives seem to have forgotten the absolute calamity of bad industrial relations over which they presided. The difference between Members on this side of the House and the Conservatives is that we have never closed the door to talks; we have always been willing to engage with resident doctors in good faith. Unlike under that party, resident doctors have received a 28.9% pay rise from this Labour Government. It is a reminder to resident doctors across the land that the grass is not greener on the other side, and that they should work with a Labour Government who want to work with them.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

13. If he will publish a national strategy for palliative care.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I am delighted to have announced in a written ministerial statement yesterday that the Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework for England. The modern service framework will be aligned with the 10-year health plan, prioritising shifting care out of hospitals and into the community to ensure personalised, compassionate support for individuals and their families.

[Gregory Stafford]

There has been cross-party and cross-charity campaigning for this strategy, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has announced it. However, hospices across the country and especially in my constituency are telling me that their biggest problem is the national insurance rise. For example, a children’s hospice that covers my constituency tells me that the £90,000 extra it has to pay in national insurance could have funded three nurses. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor ahead of tomorrow’s Budget to ensure that hospices, and indeed other health and social care organisations, are exempt from any national insurance rises, either in the past or in the future?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I notice he did not welcome the fact that we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million capital funding boost and £80 million in revenue funding for children’s hospices over three years. We also notice that Conservative Members do like to welcome the additional investment generated from the last Budget, but they do not seem to welcome the means by which it was generated, so I would say to them: what would they cut or what taxes would they put up to pay for what we are doing to get our NHS back on its feet and fit for the future?

World COPD Day

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate the day after World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease day. He gave an excellent speech, although I think he was being characteristically modest when he mentioned his dancing ability—I am sure he is much better than he claims.

As we have heard, COPD is a group of conditions that too often goes unnoticed until it is dangerously advanced. More than 1.7 million people across the UK have a COPD diagnosis. However, NICE estimates that around 600,000 more are living with the condition undiagnosed, and indeed this afternoon we heard figures that are even higher than that.

I am fortunate to have a relatively low rate of COPD in my constituency, at about 1.46%, but that figure masks the variation within my constituency. Those differences are reflected across the country: rates are significantly higher in the north of England, and in the 10% most deprived areas the prevalence is nearly double. People living in the poorest areas are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the wealthiest. Research from Asthma and Lung UK shows that the poorest 10% of households are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than someone from the most affluent 10%. As the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted, this is, in every sense, a disease that tracks inequality. Where someone lives should never decide how long they live, yet for COPD far too often it does.

Before the pandemic, around 70% of people diagnosed with COPD said they faced barriers to accessing that diagnosis, and 14% were initially misdiagnosed—often told that they had a chest infection or a lingering cough. Some were simply sent away after raising concerns with their GP. However, the pandemic made a serious problem worse: Government figures demonstrate that already inadequate diagnosis rates plummeted, and they show little sign of recovering. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, spirometry—the gold-standard diagnostic test—which has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, continues to be a problem.

The consequences of that pause are stark. There was a 51% reduction in diagnoses in 2020 compared with the year before, meaning that around 46,000 people missed out on a diagnosis in that year alone, and around 92,000 over the course of the pandemic. As the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) said, late diagnosis means more advanced disease and higher mortality, more frequent exacerbations and quicker deterioration in quality of life. Those flare-ups can cause permanent lung damage and require long hospital stays. COPD is now the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions, rising three times faster than general admissions.

The pressure on the NHS is enormous: an estimated £3.9 billion a year, including £1.4 billion for exacerbations alone. Lost productivity costs £1.7 billion, and reduced quality of life accounts for a further £2.2 billion. When diagnosis fails, costs rise, outcomes worsen and patients suffer the price of delay.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has rightly pointed out, late diagnosis is not the only driver of pressure. Asthma and Lung UK, formerly the British Lung Foundation, found that patients who received the five fundamentals of COPD care experienced fewer flare-ups and were better equipped to manage their symptoms, yet more than three quarters of respondents said that they were missing at least one part of that basic care. Those with the most recent diagnoses were the least likely to receive the full package, so the situation is getting worse, not better. Asthma and Lung UK notes that many people must effectively learn to navigate the NHS themselves to access the care that they need. That is not acceptable. These are people who are already struggling, and they should not have to fight the system as well as the disease.

Around 420,000 people in the UK may have had their working lives cut short by COPD. More than half of respondents to the Asthma and Lung UK survey said that their mental health had worsened since diagnosis, so we can and must do better. The NHS long-term plan includes commitments on respiratory disease, including for early detection and improved access to pulmonary rehabilitation. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards those commitments. This November, waiting lists continue to rise. We need a credible strategy to ensure that the NHS can manage the winter safely while maintaining high-quality care. We need a realistic plan to address the continuing backlog in elective and non-emergency care, and a targeted approach to address persistent gaps in respiratory services.

The national respiratory audit programme—formerly the national asthma and COPD audit programme—was launched in 2018 and is led by the Royal College of Physicians. It has been invaluable in identifying gaps and variations in care. As part of the programme, NHS England developed a best practice tariff for COPD, which is met when 60% of COPD patients admitted for an exacerbation receive specialist input after 24 hours and when all COPD patients receive a discharge bundle.

I have mentioned it before in the House, but one of my proudest career moments was working for the Getting It Right First Time programme. In 2021, our respiratory medicine report, published by Dr Martin Allen during the pandemic—it was, therefore, focused on the immediate problems—raised a number of issues. For example, pulmonary rehabilitation remains one of the most effective treatments available for COPD. Of those who complete the programme, 90% report better quality of life or improved exercise capacity. The long-term plan proposes expanding access by 2028. If achieved, that could prevent half a million exacerbations and avoid 80,000 admissions. As 2028 is not that far away, will the Minister update on progress towards those targets?

The NHS RightCare pathway provides a comprehensive framework for improving diagnosis, management and treatment. It highlights the importance of timely pulmonary rehabilitation and early intervention, so I welcome the Government’s rolling it out. Finally, tackling smoking remains fundamental. Between 2022 and 2023, there were around 400,000 hospital admissions attributable to smoking, and 16% of all respiratory admissions were smoking-related. Between 75% and 85% of COPD deaths remain linked to smoking, yet only around half of COPD inpatient services report having a dedicated tobacco dependency adviser. What are the Government going to do to improve that situation?

I call on the Minister to take urgent action, first by implementing a national strategy to raise awareness, strengthen early diagnosis and reduce risk factors such as smoking and air pollution; secondly, by ensuring that all COPD patients have timely access to treatment, pulmonary rehabilitation, and integrated health and social care support for patients and carers; and, thirdly, by committing to increasing research investment, and to introducing innovative treatments and transparent data-driven accountability to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable hospitalisations. We cannot keep treating COPD as a winter crisis when it is, in truth, a year-round emergency. The time to act is now.

The evidence is clear. Too many people remain undiagnosed, too many are diagnosed too late, too many do not receive the basic standard of care to which they are entitled and too many end up in hospital when their deterioration could have been prevented. We have the data. We have the clinical consensus. We have the pathways. We do not lack knowledge; we lack resolve. People living with COPD deserve timely, high-quality care and the support that they need to live fuller, healthier lives. It is within our gift to deliver that; let us not fail them.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

However, there will always be instances in which people do need to be detained in an in-patient setting, so investment in those facilities is vital. I am delighted that Lynfield Mount hospital in my constituency has recently secured funding to implement a fantastic plan to upgrade its in-patient facilities, which will help to ensure that people are treated closer to home, get support to recover, maintain relationships with family, friends and colleagues, and restart their lives after detention. I commend the amendments to the Minister.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

As a member of the Bill Committee, I had the opportunity to closely examine the development and scrutiny of this Bill alongside my Opposition colleagues. We sought to strengthen the legislation, particularly in relation to safeguarding children and ensuring robust protections for those admitted under the Mental Health Act framework.

Given the shortness of time, I will speak only about amendments 41 and 42. They make the vital clarification that the nominated person for any patient under the age of 16 must have parental or guardian responsibility unless there are clear and established safeguarding concerns. In essence, that would ensure that the parents remain the lawful decision-makers and the first and most natural safeguards for their child’s welfare.

Let us consider, for a moment, what is at stake. Imagine a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, frightened and confused during a psychiatric admission. In that moment of distress, a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—could persuade the child to nominate them as their representative. That individual would then gain legal powers to object to treatment or discharge decisions, while the parents—the very people who know the child best and have both a moral and legal duty to protect them—could be sidelined.

Once such a nomination is witnessed, it carries legal force. The rights and responsibilities of parents could, in effect, be overridden. Although that may sound hypothetical, it is not. Family courts have seen precisely how manipulative individuals exploit vulnerable young people. Groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in the legal grey zones. If we are not crystal clear that only a court may displace parental responsibility, we risk leaving the door ajar for such exploitation. I ask the Minister to assure the House in winding up that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental authority simply by nominating someone else, without a full and proper judicial process.

The Bill does have fallback provisions, which are of course welcome, but they are not watertight unless the law explicitly confirms that only a court can transfer or restrict parental rights.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The only protections that I can see in schedule 2 are an age requirement, a stipulation not to be disqualified by a previous court order, and the presence of a witness. There is therefore no pre-emptive way of protecting people, which is why amendment 41 is so important.

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight.

As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right.

New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.

[Sojan Joseph]

I would like to speak in support of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the changes that this legislation will introduce regarding autistic people or those who have a learning disability. As a result, it will no longer be possible for someone to be detained in a mental health hospital indefinitely simply because they have autism or a learning disability. In the current system, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention because of a lack of facilities in the NHS and social care, so this change is welcome and long overdue.

The Government have confirmed that the changes will be implemented once the necessary community provision is in place. Establishing strong support in the community is essential for not only enabling safe discharge from hospital settings but preventing unnecessary admissions in the first place. I recognise that the Government are working on setting out what strong community services look like and what resources they require to implement them. From serving with the Minister in Committee, I have no doubt about his commitment to ensuring that this community provision is introduced in a timely manner, but I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that there should be a road map in the legislation that will provide a clear framework outlining how those services will be introduced. After all, ending inappropriate detention requires robust community-based alternatives to ensure that people with autism or a learning disability who would have previously been detained do not fall through gaps in the system.

Having a road map developed in conjunction with autistic people, people with learning disabilities, their carers and healthcare professionals will help to identify and address any gaps in service provision and workforce capacity. I also believe that it will help to reduce the risk of people with autism or a learning disability needing police intervention or emergency hospital care because the support is inadequate. By putting in place a road map, new clause 37 would help to ensure that we end all the sooner the injustice of people with autism or a learning disability being detained.

Draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 General Committees

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms McVey.

As we have heard, the order before us will, broadly speaking, enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to take primary responsibility for the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines in pharmacies and hospital aseptic facilities. Like the Minister, I thank the thousands of pharmacists across the country for the way they serve our communities, both in the community and in hospital settings.

The Conservatives will not be opposing this legislation. The current model of medical dispensing centralises responsibility upon the shoulders of the pharmacist, taking their clinical skills away from treating patients and underutilising qualified pharmacy technicians. It is clearly sensible, therefore, for both pharmacists and technicians to work at the top of their remit. That will be more rewarding for them and more efficient for the NHS.

That is why the Conservative Government launched a consultation in 2023 on retaining the need for each pharmacy to have a responsible pharmacist but enabling them to delegate more straightforward tasks to technicians. The risk of doing so is low, and it is further lowered by the fact that, in Great Britain, pharmacy technician is a regulated profession. I am therefore pleased to see that this Government have picked up the baton from the previous Conservative Government, and we welcome the new legislation in principle. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister.

First, embedded within these provisions is a total reliance on “supervision” and “authorisation”, yet clarity of definition is missing on how those will operate in practice for a pharmacist authorising a pharmacy technician to dispense medicines. I note that 76% of pharmacists in the consultation shared that anxiety. The Government assure us that there will be a transition period to enable the General Pharmaceutical Council to update its 2005 guidance on pharmacist supervision, but the length of that transition period remains uncertain.

Will the Minister confirm the length of that transition period to ensure that regulators can put the correct safeguards in place to preserve accountability when it comes to the rather loose terms of “supervision” and “authorisation”? What guidance has he provided to the regulator on those guidelines? This is a particularly important clarification, given the Government’s preference for oral authorisation, which, although flexible, leaves pharmacists without specific written record-keeping.

As the Minister knows, not all pharmacies have a pharmacy technician. In fact, NHS England’s 2023 community pharmacy workforce survey found that there were 17,666 full-time employed pharmacists and 4,324 pharmacy technicians. The impact assessment notes that smaller pharmacies are less likely to have a technician, so larger pharmacies will be able to dispense more cheaply and develop a broader service. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect on rural, remote or small family pharmacies? What plans does he have to monitor the effect of the consolidation on travel distances and patient choice?

With the time freed up by delegation of tasks, pharmacists will be able to provide contraception services, blood-pressure checks and vaccinations. They will also be able to expand Pharmacy First provision—another great service introduced by the previous Government, I note. However, as a new service, Pharmacy First was introduced within a fixed funding envelope, so what plans does the Minister have to expand that service?

Finally, what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland regarding the establishment of a regulated profession of pharmacy technicians there?

As Conservatives, we welcome improving efficiency and giving patients faster access to appointments and prescriptions. For those reasons, the changes are to be welcomed. I conclude by paying tribute to officials in the Department, and organisations outside this House, who have worked hard to get these updated provisions before us today.

Baby Loss

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Let me first draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) and the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate, and on their eloquent and thoughtful speeches. Behind the statistics that I will put before Members, as others have done today, are the broken families with a gaping hole in their lives and a pain that will never go away. There are so many unanswered questions. What would their first word have been? When would they have taken their first steps? Who would they have grown up to become? For families who have lost a baby, these questions, painfully, tragically, will never be answered.

I have been honoured to meet representatives of charities all of which are doing excellent work to support families who have been affected by baby loss, and campaigning for improved maternity services. I pay tribute to those charities—including Bliss, Sands and Tommy’s—and to the royal colleges, and I thank the families in the Maternity Safety Alliance for sharing their very personal and moving stories with me when the shadow Secretary of State and I met them recently.

The last Government worked hard to improve maternity services. A decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, announced an ambition to halve the rates of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths in England by 2030, and he made encouraging progress. The stillbirth rate fell by about 20%, as did the neonatal death rate, and the maternal death rate fell by about a third.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of baby loss certificates following the pregnancy loss review under the last Government was a vital step in recognising bereaved parents’ grief and offering support on their terms?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Those certificates have proved to be of great comfort to many. The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) talked about her work in that regard, and I thank her for it. I am also grateful for the work of my former colleague Tim Loughton.

One of the reasons I went into politics is the fact that one can make more of a difference as a politician than as a single doctor alone. The changes made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash mean that, by quite some margin, he has saved more babies’ lives than I have as a consultant paediatrician. I assure the Secretary of State that it is not flattery when I say that he has more capacity than any NHS doctor when it comes to saving babies’ lives. I am pleased to see him here at almost midnight; I know that he cares, and I know that, like all of us, he wants to stop the tragedies about which we have heard so much today. However, I ask him to consider, every day, whether he is really doing all that he can to maximise the opportunity that he has, and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I have a few questions for him. He said he came in with a plan, but in fact he took a year to create the 10-year plan, which creates a maternity and neonatal taskforce that is tasked with creating another plan. I sincerely hope that it is a good plan, after all this waiting, but I do worry that it has lost time, so can he confirm when it will be published?

Staffing levels have been mentioned in many tragic incidents, and the Secretary of State has promised that he will train thousands of additional midwives. Looking at the figures, an average of 10 fewer students have been accepted on to midwifery degrees in England across his two years in office compared with 2023. Can the Secretary of State confirm when he expects to train the 1,000 additional midwives he promised in his manifesto?

The previous Government increased the number of medical school places and built five new medical schools. As those students begin to qualify, the specialist training places need to be expanded and British graduates need to be prioritised. The Secretary of State seemed to understand that at Easter, but what has he done about it? The applicant-to-place ratio has risen dramatically, and now strikes are threatened, which would threaten the care of women and babies across the country.

We know that reducing baby loss starts before a baby is conceived and that factors such as teenage pregnancy, smoking, obesity and sub-optimally managed chronic conditions increase the risk of stillbirth. We must systemically improve on factors that increase the risk of baby death. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has brought through legislation, introduced by the previous Government, to fortify bread flour with folic acid by the end of 2026. That will prevent 200 cases of neural tube defects a year and improve the health of pregnant women. I am also pleased to see that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is gradually making its way through Parliament. However, given that the Bill completed its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 23 April and is not due to appear in Committee until 27 October—more than six months later—there just does not seem to be enough urgency in the Government’s actions. Can the Secretary of State tell us what he is doing to improve pre-conception advice and optimise the management of chronic conditions in women to reduce the risk of baby loss?

As an NHS doctor, I pay tribute to my colleagues, who welcome almost 600,000 tiny miracles into the world each year. However, as we have heard this evening, care does not always meet the highest standards and too often avoidable deaths occur. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the findings of the ongoing Ockenden review into maternity services will be swiftly acted on? Donna Ockenden’s 2020 review into maternity care at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust found that at least 201 babies and nine mothers could have survived had they had better care. From her report came a £95 million ringfenced fund to improve the care available for expectant mothers, but as we have heard already this evening, the Government have slashed that fund from £95 million to just £2 million, with the rest of the money siphoned off to England’s 42 integrated care boards.

The Government have also reduced ICB budgets and are forcing them to restructure. I am worried that this un-ringfencing of the budget, and the distracting reorganisation, will have a negative impact on efforts to improve maternity services. What is the Secretary of State doing to prevent negative consequences?

Neonatal care can be lifesaving. One in seven babies in the UK requires neonatal care, but unfortunately their fight for life is not always won, and 1,933 babies died in neonatal care in 2023. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State clarify the extent to which neonatal services will be included in the maternity and neonatal investigation due by the end of the year? How will the quality of neonatal care be assessed? The recent NHS estates review of maternity and neonatal care did not appear to include parental accommodation, yet many parents find that their babies are transferred miles away for specialist care. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise the value of this accommodation and make sure it is widely available?

As many Members have mentioned, black and ethnic minority women are more likely to suffer baby loss or maternal death. Can the Secretary of State update us on what progress he has made on his Government’s manifesto promise to close the maternal mortality gap for black and Asian women?

In the decade since the previous Government launched ambitions to improve maternity safety in the UK, the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths has reduced by almost a quarter, and the number of maternal deaths has reduced by around a third. These are encouraging signs, and they show good progress. We must build on these achievements, but there is so much more work to be done. Today we have heard many stories of loss and of care failures. Only action will turn the page on baby loss. We all wish for improved maternity and neonatal care, but the Secretary of State is the man with the levers to make that happen—the levers to save hundreds of lives. I urge him to use them urgently.

Rare Cancers Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

To your delight, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the delight of the whole House—especially that of the Government Whips—I am not going to speak for very long on Report, although I am not promising not to speak for some time on Third Reading. I wish to briefly speak to amendments 5 and 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). Before that, though, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on the Bill. I am generally supportive of it and think it is entirely necessary.

Turning to the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right. It does concern me that the words

“the opinion of the Secretary of State”

are included proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, proposed new subsection (4) of section 1E and proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 set out the definition of a rare cancer, and if the Bill passes, that definition will become law. I therefore think there is a contradiction within this piece of legislation: it contains an absolute definition of a rare cancer, but adds some ambiguity by referring to the “opinion” of the Secretary of State. I ask the Minister to explain how both those things can be true. If the Secretary of State decides that there is some other definition of a rare cancer, how can that possibly be in line with the definition that is written into the law?

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has said, the definition that has been included in the Bill—that a rare cancer is

“a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom”—

aligns it with the UK rare diseases framework, which was published by Lord Bethell in the other place in 2021. It seems to me that that is an effective and suitable definition, so again, I ask the Minister whether he expects there to be some other definition. If he does not expect that, why is it necessary to include the words

“the opinion of the Secretary of State”?

The Bill is not even consistent. Proposed new subsection (2) of section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 refers to the opinion of the Secretary of State, but proposed new subsection (5A) of section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 talks about

“the opinion of NHS England”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has pointed out, NHS England is fortunately going to be abolished very soon. When that happens, will we have to pass either primary legislation or secondary legislation to delete those words from the Bill? Would it not be better if we deleted the words “the opinion of NHS England” now? Why will the Minister not consider removing them? If there is some reason why he thinks the Secretary of State might have to change the definition, why are those two clauses of the Bill not consistent?

I hope hon. Members will see that what the hon. Member for Christchurch and I are trying to achieve—certainly through amendments 5 and 8—is to establish a clear definition of a rare cancer. We are aiming to ensure that there is no ambiguity in that definition, and if there is to be ambiguity, we want to at least ensure that the body or authority that is going to make any changes is consistent in the legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing this essential Bill before us and thank him for the hard work he has done to make sure we get to this place. As I have said many times in this House, early detection saves lives, but without meaningful progress in research we will fall behind other countries making major advances in cancer care.

We call these rare cancers, and they are rare in their individual components, but I have been amazed by how many constituents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages have contacted me in support of the Bill and to share their experiences. Despite rare and less common cancers receiving more than half of UK cancer research funding in recent years, a staggering 82% of patients surveyed by Cancer52 said that they were never offered the chance to participate in a clinical trial. That is not because there is no public support or because the science is not there, but because persistent structural barriers are in the way. The Bill addresses those barriers directly.

If enacted, the Rare Cancers Bill will appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers within Government, creating accountability, facilitating research and collaboration, and embedding co-ordination across NHS England—while it still exists—the National Institute for Health and Care Research and cancer alliances. Secondly, it will mandate a review of the UK’s orphan drug regulations, aligning incentives such as marketing exclusivity and reduced regulatory fees with international best practice. Thirdly, it will adapt the NIHR’s Be Part of Research platform to create a dedicated, proactive registry that directly links patients with relevant clinical trials.

Let us be clear: this Bill aims to deploy smarter systems, harness the power of artificial intelligence, expand fair access to treatment, end the postcode lottery and ensure that every patient, no matter the type of cancer, has the opportunity to benefit from research and high-quality personalised care. Let us also be clear about the need. Rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses, yet they are responsible for 55% of all cancer deaths. That means that more than half of those who die of cancer in this country do so from conditions that receive disproportionately less investment, less attention and less hope.

The disparity in survival is stark. For some rare cancers, five-year survival rates languish in the single digits. Only 16% of people diagnosed with cancers of the pancreas, brain, oesophagus, liver or stomach survive beyond five years. By contrast, the five-year survival rate across more common cancers is more than 55%. This is not a marginal issue; this is mainstream cancer care, but it is neglected.

Our international peers are taking action. In countries such as France, Germany and the USA, regulatory frameworks are actively incentivising clinical trials for rare cancers. The UK, meanwhile, has fallen from second to 10th in Europe for access to orphan medicines. We must reverse that decline. We must unlock the potential of our research base, and this Bill gives us the legislative structure to do so.

The NHS 10-year plan, launched with the ambition to modernise our health service, is a wide-ranging document. It rightly champions early diagnosis, innovation and personalised care, and there is no doubt that many of its pillars, particularly those on genomics, digital access and therapeutic innovation, can benefit people with rare cancers, but “can” is not the same as “will”, and “should” is not the same as “must”. The plan sets out a national goal to diagnose 75% of all cancers at stages 1 or 2 by 2028. That target explicitly includes rare and less common cancers. That is an important and necessary ambition but, as campaigners have rightly pointed out, without specific structural action on rare cancers, we will not hit that target; even worse, we will leave some of the most vulnerable patients behind.

As I have said, these are not fringe diseases: these are mainstream conditions that are under-researched and under-resourced. The 10-year plan includes a number of relevant commitments, such as the whole genome sequencing of newborns, supported by £650 million of investment, which could revolutionise early detection of genetic cancer syndromes. Of course, there are some safeguarding issues around that sequencing—I do not want to pre-empt my column in PoliticsHome on Monday, but please read it for more about my concerns over those safeguards.

Likewise, the plan includes the expansion of genomic and pharmacogenomic services in the NHS, giving us the potential to offer targeted therapies for rare cancers. It has a pipeline for advanced therapy medicinal products, including CAR T-cell treatments, which are already being rolled out for certain rare blood cancers. It also streamlines the regulatory pathways through a proposed innovator passport to bring treatments to patients faster.

Those are steps in the right direction, but let me be frank: the plan does not go far enough for people with rare cancers. There is no dedicated rare cancer taskforce, despite repeated calls from Cancer52, Sarcoma UK and the Brain Tumour Charity. There is no specific ringfenced funding for rare cancer services, despite the complex multidisciplinary care that these conditions require. There are no rare cancer-specific training pathways or fellowships, despite clear evidence from clinicians that a lack of expertise is hampering outcomes. The England rare diseases action plan, published alongside the NHS strategy, takes some welcome steps on collaborative networks and data integration, but rare cancers are again folded into a general framework, rather than given the targeted attention they so desperately need.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I am here today on behalf of my young constituent, Imogen, and all young people facing tongue cancer. It is a rare cancer, with frightening and disabling treatment options. I am also here on behalf of my constituent Ros, who lost her mother to pancreatic cancer just 24 hours after diagnosis. Does the hon. Member agree that this House should be united in its support for practical, targeted reforms to advance rare cancer research, which are supported by more than 30 expert charity partners and which so many of our constituents desperately want to see passed into law?

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right—I hope this matter has cross-party support in the House. As she points out, a significant number of charities across the country hope that the Bill will pass today, as do I.

That brings me nicely on to what Jane Lyons, the former chief executive of Cancer52, has said:

“Rare and less common cancers make up a massive part of the cancer burden in this country. They need proper structural attention—not just well-meaning inclusion in generic plans.”

She is right. We need dedicated leadership and a single accountable individual or office for rare cancer research and care. We need smarter data platforms, such as the adapted Be Part of Research system proposed in the Bill, and we need a clear strategy for delivering orphan drug access, so that the UK becomes a destination for innovation, not a detour.

When the NHS 10-year plan speaks of transformation, we must ensure that that transformation is inclusive. When we talk about prevention, early detection and innovation, we must be honest about who gets access and who does not. If we are serious about improving outcomes for all cancer patients, rare cancers must not be treated as an afterthought. They must be recognised for what they are: a major public health challenge hiding in plain sight.

The 10-year plan gives us the tools, but it is now up to this House and to Ministers to ensure that those tools are used equitably, strategically and with urgency. That is why I was incredibly saddened to hear that Dr Susan Michaelis, the founder of the lobular moonshot project, died a couple of days ago. Susan’s life and legacy exemplify why this Bill matters. Lobular breast cancer affects 22 women every single day in the UK and more than 1,000 globally. It is not rare in the strict legal sense—more than six per 100,000 are diagnosed annually—but due to the severe lack of research, awareness and tailored treatment, it deserves to be treated as such by our systems.

Susan was due to meet the Secretary of State on 14 July—this coming Monday—to discuss how to accelerate the vital five-year research project she helped to initiate. Thankfully, that meeting will still go ahead. The campaign will not stop. The lobular moonshot project will continue—for Susan, and for every woman still facing this disease without the research-backed options that she deserved.

Susan is far from alone. A constituent recently wrote to me about their mother, who died in 2011, just three years after her diagnosis with glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive and incurable brain tumour. The average glioblastoma survival time is 12 to 18 months; only 25% of patients survive more than a year, and just 5% live beyond five. Another campaigner spoke movingly about the delays she faced before being diagnosed with a rare kidney cancer—initially misdiagnosed, postponed by covid, and ultimately caught too late.

There are so many rare cancers, and the stories repeat. Rare cancers are not rare to those living with them; they are rare only to the system. According to Jane Lyons, the former CEO of Cancer52,

“Something like 47% of all cancer diagnoses are for rare and less common cancers, but they account for 55% of all cancer deaths…That’s a massive number of challenges—and a huge opportunity for impact.”

Sarcoma UK’s recent report found that one in three sarcoma patients waits more than six months to be diagnosed. Referral pathways are frequently misapplied, and this delay is not a minor inconvenience; in cancer care, it can be fatal.

The Brain Tumour Charity has called the Bill

“essential for any real hope of progress in finding a cure.”

The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce has declared that this legislation is

“crucial for early diagnosis and equity of access.”

The Urostomy Association, in its rare cancers manifesto, calls for urgent structural change to improve data, screening and outcomes, and Lynch Syndrome UK has spoken powerfully about the opportunities to accelerate genetic-led, AI-informed cancer prevention if rare cancer research is properly funded.

I believe that the Rare Cancers Bill will help to achieve that. It has three core provisions: first, a named lead for rare cancer research so that this agenda has a home in Government and a voice at the top table; secondly, a review of the orphan drug regulations to create better commercial incentives for new treatments and trials; and thirdly, a patient-focused data system built into the Be Part of Research platform so that people are no longer left in the dark about trials that could change their lives. This is not just about saving lives; it is about improving them. It is about ensuring that families are not left with grief and regret when better systems might have given them hope.

Today, as we consider the Rare Cancers Bill, let us remember people like Susan Michaelis and the countless families who have campaigned for change they may not live to see. Let us recognise that rare cancers are not someone else’s problem, but a public health injustice hiding in plain sight. Let us pass the Bill—not just for the scientists and clinicians, but for every patient, and for every parent and partner who has watched a loved one suffer from a cancer few people can even pronounce. This is our chance to correct the imbalance, drive innovation and deliver real, lasting change. If we seize this moment, we can ensure that every patient—no matter how rare their cancer—can access trials, treatment and the possibility of life.

Let us not waste this opportunity. Let us be clear-eyed about the gaps and build an NHS that genuinely serves every patient, with every type of cancer, in every part of this country. Together, let us leave a legacy worthy of those we have lost, and transform care for those still fighting.