Prostate Cancer Screening

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by thanking David James, director of patient projects and influencing at Prostate Cancer Research, for creating the petition, and the 101,932 people who supported it, including 195 in my constituency in the Scottish Borders.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend thank the high number of my constituents who signed the petition, putting West Worcestershire at the top of list for the number of signers who brought it before Parliament? Will he also praise the work of the Graham Fulford Charitable Trust which, working with the Worcestershire Ambassadors, brings so many free prostate cancer screening opportunities to people in my constituency?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a testament to the importance of the issue not just to her constituents—given the number who signed the petition—but to all our constituents who signed it that so many see the need for the Government to address this matter. All the charities do important work in the area.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Lamont]

I will make some progress, if I may, to develop a few arguments. I will take a couple of interventions, but I am conscious of the number of colleagues who are keen to speak.

The petition argues:

“Targeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men.”

It also questions the decision to offer screening exclusively to men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic variants.

Since the petition was launched, the UK National Screening Committee recommendation has narrowed, and the Government have now accepted screening for a a smaller group than the petition sought. The questions for us today are: who should be included? Why have other high-risk groups been excluded? And what evidence would justify widening the programme?

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the United Kingdom. More than 68,000 men are diagnosed annually, with over 12,000 dying from the disease each year. Patient survival hinges heavily on when it is diagnosed: if it is at stages 1 or 2, nearly 100% of men survive for five years or more, whereas if it is at stage 4, only about half live for five years or more.

Sir Chris Hoy, Scotland’s most decorated Olympian, knows this better than anyone. He was diagnosed in 2023, in his 40s, after a scan for shoulder pain. He had no prostate cancer symptoms at all, yet by then the cancer had spread to his bones and was terminal. His father and grandfather both had prostate cancer. Under the programme that the Government have now accepted, a family history like his would not, on its own, qualify a man for screening.

Last year, the broadcaster Dermot Murnaghan was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer and, sadly, died in July this year. He said that he “fell through the gaps”, having assumed that the regular health checks he received would include a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test. They did not. His message to other men was simple:

“Get the test. Insist on the test.”

Risk is not evenly distributed—age, family history, genetics and ethnicity all matter. One in eight men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, with the proportion rising to around one in four for black men. That is why the petition argues for screening to begin with men already known to be at greater risk.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Scotland; I have had many emails on this issue from my constituents in Wales. Does he agree that when it comes to testing, all men are at high risk? It should happen not just in England but all around the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we get a UK-wide approach, because there are subtle differences among the devolved nations.

The UK Government decision to accept the UK NSC’s final recommendation in England—to provide a PSA test every two years to men aged 45 to 61 with pathogenic BRCA2 variant and a relevant family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer—is a significant step forward, and roll-out is expected from 2027. BRCA1 carriers, however, are excluded, and BRCA2 carriers must also meet the family history criterion. The Department of Health and Social Care estimates estimates that only around 1,500 men in England will be eligible, and acknowledges that most prostate cancer cases will therefore fall outside the programme.

The final recommendation also falls well short of what Members from across the House have called for. In November 2025, a cross-party letter signed by more than 120 MPs, hand delivered to the Health Secretary by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called on the Government to act for the men at greatest risk: black men; men with a family history of prostate, breast or ovarian cancer; and BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Its message was clear: perfection must not be the enemy of progress. The concern raised by those MPs reinforces the central question that the petition addresses: is the current screening programme too narrow?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

As somebody who has the BRCA2 genetic abnormality, I will be eligible for the extra screening that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Unfortunately, too many men are delayed in getting screened, especially in rural and deprived areas, and the delays result in prostate cancer being identified far later. Although I am grateful to the Government for including me in the screening, does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to inform men of the need for regular screening to avoid it being caught so late?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an important point about awareness and the challenge in rural areas. I will come to that later in my speech.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton is present, having done so much to advance this issue. As Prime Minister, his Government backed the £42 million Transform trial, providing £16 million of Government funding to examine different approaches to prostate cancer screening.

For the benefit of Members who are not aware, Transform is the largest prostate cancer screening trial in two decades. Designed and led by Prostate Cancer UK, with Government funding through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, it is comparing combinations of PSA blood tests, fast MRI scans and genetic saliva tests to find the safest and most effective way to detect prostate cancer before it becomes incurable. Crucially, it is designed to include far more black men than previous trials. With further Government funding announced this year, it is now worth around £60 million, and its first-stage results are expected before the end of 2027.

My right hon. Friend has since become an ambassador for Prostate Cancer Research and has called for a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk. Prostate Cancer Research says that the final UK NSC recommendation

“falls short of what is needed”,

arguing that too many high-risk men remain outside the programme.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the former Prime Minister’s tireless campaigning on this issue. I have been deeply moved by many of my constituents whose lives were saved by early screening; all too often, though, that was the result of charity initiatives, because it was not available on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned a lot of the advanced research in this area, which highlights every day how important screening is. Does he agree that the Government must continue to review the issue and see whether widening the screening criteria could save more lives?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is right. There is so much work and research going on in this area, and it is imperative that the Government acknowledge that work and react once more informed evidence becomes available.

The petitioners argue that the UK NSC has “fixated on potential harms” and underweighted the benefits of earlier detection, but there are good reasons why screening programmes face a higher evidential threshold. A raised PSA level does not by itself diagnose prostate cancer, but can cause anxiety and lead to further investigation. Screening can also result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, which can cause lasting harms. Prostate Cancer Research challenged the draft modelling, arguing that it relied too heavily on older evidence and did not adequately reflect modern MRI-led diagnostic pathways. The UK NSC says it considered those criticisms and updated its modelling before reaching its final recommendation.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank all my constituents who have contacted me about this vital point. Community diagnostic centres offer great resources to speed up screening. Does my hon. Friend agree that more emphasis should be put on those centres, particularly in rural areas like South Shropshire?

[John Lamont]

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

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

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

“whether screening would cause more good than harm.”

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

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

[John Lamont]

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

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

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

“a major step forward for prostate cancer testing.”

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

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

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

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I had the joy of spending time with the Kendal and South Lakes prostate cancer support group just a few weeks ago. Like the hon. Gentleman and me, its members are massively in favour of increased screening and making sure there is default screening for men over 50. Does the hon. Gentleman also think the Government need to be aware that if we test more people earlier and identify cancers earlier, more people can be treated? Does he believe the Government have done enough work, both north of the border and in the UK Parliament, to ensure that we have sufficient capacity for surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy so that we can treat the people who are diagnosed?

[John Lamont]

That is a key point, because not everybody who is diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily need further treatment. Some people will not die of prostate cancer but will die with prostate cancer. The challenge for the Government is getting the balance right between when it is appropriate to test and treat and when it is not.

I am conscious that many Members want to speak, so let me conclude. Screening is not simple. Finding more cancer is not automatically the same as saving more lives, but legitimate concerns about overdiagnosis should not prevent us from asking whether advances in diagnosis have changed where the balance now lies. More than 100,000 people have asked Parliament to consider targeted screening for men at higher risk. Since they signed the petition, targeted prostate cancer screening has entered policy for the first time. That is an important first step. The question now is how and when the boundary should move as the evidence develops.

The evidence I heard when preparing for this debate points both ways. Earlier detection could save lives, but questions remain over whether modern screening can reduce past harms. The Transform trial should help to provide the answers. When it reports, the Government must be ready to act quickly; that is what the petitioners asked for and what I hope the Minister will commit to. I look forward to hearing from her and from colleagues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I thank David James, the petition creator, and Prostate Cancer Research for leading the campaign so effectively. That so many colleagues decided to contribute to this debate is a sign of its success. I thank all colleagues, who spoke passionately, albeit briefly, about the importance of the issue. Some shared very moving experiences, either personal or on behalf of their constituents.

I thank the Minister for her response. It is important to have reassurance from the Government that they will be led by the evidence. The Minister said that she will consider further evidence that emerges from the research, but it is important that the Government do more than consider the evidence; they must be led by it.

[Rishi Sunak]

I too thank the Minister for her considered response. As she can see from the attendance for this debate, there is enormous interest in the timetable for updating the model with new evidence, some of which has been published already. Does my hon. Friend agree that time is of the essence, and that we would appreciate some clarity on timelines?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the people involved in the campaign and those trying to ensure that men are saved from this terrible disease have some certainty. If the Minister wrote to me with a timetable for when the Government expect to respond and deal with the issue, I could share that with colleagues who participated in this debate. Last, I thank the team at Transform. They do tremendous and inspiring work, and, ultimately, they will save the lives of more men.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

1. What steps he is taking to help improve cross-border healthcare between UK nations.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

9. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on improving cross-border healthcare.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)]

The Government are committed to ensuring patients can access timely, high-quality care wherever they live in the United Kingdom, while recognising ongoing challenges. We are working with the NHS and devolved Governments to improve digital interoperability, streamline cross-border billing and support more joined-up care.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

I would welcome a meeting with the hon. Member. As he knows, decisions about waiting list management in Wales are matters for the Welsh Government, but I agree that patients in border communities should be able to access care as quickly and conveniently as possible.

[John Lamont]

For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, accessing NHS treatment can sometimes be more complicated than it should be. Some residents in the Scottish Borders are registered with GP practices in Northumberland, but their medical records are not always shared properly between NHS services in England and Scotland. The SNP Government refuse to allow reciprocal care, so will the Minister urgently work with the Scottish Government to ensure my constituents can be properly treated as close to home as possible?

Less Survivable Cancers

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member makes a very good intervention. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that this is covered in the national cancer plan. From what I am hearing, I am optimistic that it will be.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. My constituent Fiona Tweedie asked me to attend this debate because she sadly lost her husband to a brain tumour last year. She asked me to flag, in relation to the national cancer strategy, the fact that it is very difficult in Scotland to access clinical trials, and if someone is based in Scotland, they cannot access English trials. Does the hon. Member agree that this needs to be a genuinely national strategy, and that it must not allow different parts of the UK to take different directions?

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member makes a good point; we definitely need more clinical trials in this country. We have been lagging behind in the last few years, and we need them nationally, rather than just in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. That would be advantageous for both drug companies and the people who benefit from those trials.

For many of these less survivable cancers, survival rates in the UK lag behind other countries. We can see from our international counterparts, including Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the US, that progress is achievable, and that system reforms can play a key role in driving better patient outcomes. For example, the UK is ranked 29th out of 33 countries for pancreatic cancer survival. It is fair to ask the Minister: why is the UK ranked so low? It is also fair to ask the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson): why are we ranked so low after the Conservatives’ 14 years in Government? Perhaps it is due to the challenges in how our healthcare and cancer services are organised, and our service delivery, rather than the availability of treatment options. It is vital that we learn from our international counterparts and understand what systemic changes they have made to drive progress.

The all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers, of which I am a member, launched an inquiry into earlier detection and faster diagnosis. During the inquiry, the APPG heard from people with lived experience—clinicians, researchers, charities and the industry—about what vital measures are needed in the national cancer plan to improve earlier detection and faster diagnosis. The APPG found that if earlier diagnosis rates were doubled, an additional 7,500 lives would be saved every year. Deaths from those cancers could quickly be reduced by 10%.

Faster diagnosis is integral to saving lives and improving outcomes for people impacted by less survivable cancers. Simply put, it enables patients to access treatment and care much quicker, increasing their chances of survival. We are currently far from achieving this: just 28% of less survivable cancers are diagnosed at stages 1 or 2, compared with 54% for all other cancers. Concerningly, brain tumours are diagnosed in emergency settings, which is closely linked to worse outcomes.

That is common for myeloma patients—an incurable blood cancer. A third of people with myeloma are diagnosed via emergency presentation. Like the delay in diagnosing less survivable cancers, this means that their cancer has progressed untreated, and the condition has become more advanced, so their ability to tolerate treatments may be seriously hampered. The APPG’s inquiry produced some recommendations for the Government that illustrate the broad range of actions needed to achieve earlier detection and faster diagnosis, from equipping GPs with better tools and rolling out targeted screening programmes to promoting greater research into innovative diagnostics.

Cross-border Healthcare

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. I am going to give a Scottish perspective, similar to that of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) but from the Scottish side of the border.

My constituency runs along the border between Scotland and England, touching both northern English counties of Northumberland and Cumbria. To the east of my constituency, many of the people living in the southern Berwickshire towns and villages of Eyemouth, Hutton, Paxton, Burnmouth, Chirnside, Foulden and Lamberton look to Berwick-upon-Tweed as their economic centre for shopping, work and other services—I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Northumberland is taking part in the debate. To the far south of my constituency, residents of Newcastleton and Hermitage are drawn to Carlisle—similarly, I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her place.

For generations before devolution, and certainly long before the SNP took control of the Scottish Government, patients from those areas were able to obtain NHS treatment in Northumberland and Cumbria without any difficulty—not because it was necessarily any better or different, but because it was more convenient. It was a reflection of the transport links that cross the border between those communities: the bus links, shorter car journeys and community ties. The border between Scotland and England is, for those communities, simply a line on the map.

This is absolutely not a criticism of the quality of care provided by NHS Borders—quite the opposite. We have first-class NHS provision at Borders general hospital and across the Scottish Borders, provided by hard-working and dedicated health professionals, to whom I pay tribute. It is not about tearing up the devolution settlement. The NHS in the Borders is absolutely the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and no one is suggesting a retreat from the Scotland Act 1998 or taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. But it is about recognising the day-to-day challenges that people face in terms of public transport links and fitting medical appointments around work and family life.

It is also about highlighting the fact that since the SNP came to power in Holyrood, the real-life experience of many people in the Borders is that the option of cross-border healthcare has been diminished. It is about reaffirming that we are still part of one United Kingdom, and that the NHS is rightly an institution that we should be able to use regardless of which side of the border we live on.

The easiest way to describe the challenges that people face in my constituency is to share some of the stories that have been told to me in recent weeks. Margaret Merry said:

“I live in Eyemouth. Once I had to take a full day off work and 4 buses to travel to the Borders General Hospital for an x-ray, when I was working in Berwick, a 5 minute walk from where I could have had it done and only taken maybe 15 minutes out of my working day. It is ridiculous.”

Pauline Hutton said:

“I am currently under the care of BGH for cancer treatment and have to travel from Ladykirk to BGH daily for chemo. The treatment is excellent and I can’t praise the staff enough…but a simple thing like giving a blood sample means a 40 mile journey as I can’t give blood at our local surgery in Norham (1/2 mile away) because it’s in England and Borders General Hospital can’t access my results cross border. In this day of technology I can’t fathom out why medical records are all computerised yet one NHS trust can’t have access to patients medical records from another trust.”

Dennis McKeen said:

“Some patients in Newcastleton would also prefer to go to Carlisle rather than a 90 mile plus round trip to the Borders General Hospital...it’s ridiculous”.

Brenda Walker said:

“I am currently travelling from the east coast 3 times per week for dialysis at Borders General Hospital thanks to their transport system getting picked up at 6.40 am. The nurses do a brilliant job looking after us”.

Trixie Collin said:

“Currently I live in Scotland but was told that if I moved to England I would no longer be able to be seen by the consultant at Western General who had been treating me for 10 years.”

The Brucegate dental practice in Berwick-upon-Tweed said:

“As a healthcare provider in England it’s a daily problem on both sides of the border. I get rejections of referrals from both England and Scotland based on postcodes. Thanks for standing up for common sense.”

Kirsty Jamieson from Berwick-upon-Tweed said:

“We campaigned hard for reciprocal care between people living in the Borders and North Northumberland, during the 2018 A Better Hospital for Berwick campaign. No joined up thinking whatsoever.”

Lastly, Kate Tulloch highlighted the fact that this is not just a Scotland-England problem. Kate lives in Cockburnspath, which is Berwickshire in Scotland. Her GP is in Dunbar, which is also in Scotland, but Kate cannot get NHS Borders results because the two health boards, despite both being in Scotland, do not communicate. So this is not just a cross-border issue for Scotland and England; it is an issue of different health boards in Scotland not communicating properly.

All these stories clearly demonstrate the difficulties that my constituents face in accessing treatment across the border. I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I would be grateful if she could relay my asks to her colleagues. First, will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can address the challenges that some of my constituents face when it comes to cross-border healthcare? Secondly, does the Minister recognise that we need to find a solution, and can she commit to working with the Scottish Government to overcome the perceived challenges that they are putting in place?

This is not just about extra money or funding; it is about putting in place common-sense solutions. NHS Northumberland has indicated that it is more than willing to accept patients from the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, and NHS Cumbria has indicated similarly and is, I think, currently doing that for some patients. We must break through the ideological barrier that many of us believe the Scottish National party Government have put in place to stop what has happened for many years—people accessing NHS treatment on either side of the border.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I see what my hon. Friend did there, and she should brace herself as we drill down into this answer. The Conservative party is the cause of the rot: spending on NHS dentistry fell by a staggering 18% between 2010 and 2024, so it is little wonder that dentistry is on its knees. We will shortly set out plans to introduce supervised tooth brushing for three to five-year-olds in the most deprived communities, and we are working with the dental sector to implement our rescue plan.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T6. New research from Marie Curie has found that 85% of public expenditure on people in the final year of life in Scotland is spent in hospitals and only 14% on community care. The figures are very similar for England. What work is being done to ensure a minimum standard of community treatment for people in the final year of life?

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is vital that we have a palliative and end of life care service that works and is on a sustainable footing. I have had discussions with the sector. We want to ensure that we do not have the cliff edge that we had at the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to this, and we will report back in due course.

National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

Well, I do agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, when I became a Member of Parliament in 2015, I remember very clearly the absolute shock that I felt when the Conservatives immediately announced that they were not going to meet the commitment that they had made to implement the Care Act 2014 at that time, and we are still playing catch-up on that issue.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Doctors from Duns, Galashiels, Selkirk, Kelso and across the Scottish Borders have contacted me about the impact that this national insurance hike will have on their practices. They tell me that the decision will be a huge retrograde step for primary care, will have a huge financial impact on their practices, and will undermine access to primary and patient care. Why have the Labour Government made this choice to hammer local doctors?

[Karin Smyth]

As I have said, we have made a commitment to general practice and primary care by releasing extra GPs into the system. We recognise the situation in which GPs find themselves. I know this because I worked with GP practices in my previous career. We need those practices to be the foundation of our neighbourhood services, which is why we will talk in the normal process about the allocations over the next few months as part of the contract.

NHS Dentistry

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The dental services that my constituents use are the responsibility of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. My comments will focus on the challenges that we face in Scotland in accessing NHS dentistry.

I begin by thanking the dentists in my constituency, who are doing the best they can and working hard to provide essential services for people across the Scottish Borders. There is no doubt, however, that dentists, dental staff and medical professionals are hamstrung in their ability to meet the needs of every constituent because of the lack of support and help they get from the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh. Although the SNP would like to pretend otherwise to deflect from their failures, Scotland’s NHS is devolved and is the sole responsibility of the SNP Government in Holyrood.

However, instead of focusing on improving waiting times in Scotland’s NHS for dentists and GPs, the SNP Government are again distracted by their endless obsession. They are again banging on about another referendum when people across the Scottish Borders and across Scotland want the focus to be on their everyday needs. Whether we are talking about nationalists or Unionists, the SNP or Scottish Conservatives, would it not be better for everybody if the Scottish Government’s No. 1 priority was to deliver better public services for the people across Scotland? We know that that will not happen with the SNP. Its first, last and only real priority is another referendum to break up the United Kingdom, as it proved again this week.

If SNP Members were here to represent the SNP, I would tell them that those who talk about division all the time are letting down my constituents. They fail my constituents across the Scottish Borders every day and every week. One constituent wrote to me recently about the lack of emergency care on weekends. While in pain and clearly in need of help, they were told to go to the shops and buy a temporary filling repair. If any Members were here to represent the SNP, I would ask them to tell me how that person is helped by another independence referendum when the SNP Government are failing to deliver for them right now.

Another patient wrote to me about the closure of dental services in Berwick-upon-Tweed just across the border. As a result of the lack of local services, she was not offered a spot for treatment nearby in the Scottish Borders. She was told that the only dentist available was miles and miles away. It was far too far away for her to travel there. That is another direct result of the SNP Government in Edinburgh not understanding the needs of local people in the Scottish Borders and rural areas across Scotland.

My constituents should be able to see a dentist in person when they need help. Local people in the Scottish Borders deserve the same access to the NHS that people in the rest of Scotland and the United Kingdom receive. Despite the best efforts of healthcare staff, that is simply not happening. Too often, the needs of people in the Scottish Borders have been overlooked by the SNP Government in Holyrood. So I would ask SNP Members, if they were here—I add again, for the Hansard record, that they are not—how the flimsy economic plan for independence revealed this week helps my constituents get access to the health services they need.

Another constituent wrote to me about her two-year-old son, who has not been able to see a dentist since he was born. The next time the SNP is making big, overblown promises about the future of Scotland, why does it not try delivering for future generations of Scottish people by doing the day job and providing the basic services that people need?

The SNP Health Secretary, Humza Yousaf, is completely failing to deliver for Scotland. Recent statistics revealed that one in four people in Scotland have tried and failed to get a dental appointment over the past year. In rural areas, the problem is even more acute. Access to the NHS is a big problem for local people in the Scottish Borders. It is time that the SNP recognised that, accepted responsibility for its failures and got a grip on the situation. To conclude, will the UK Health Minister engage with colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that my constituents are given the best support possible to access the dental services they deserve?

Motor Neurone Disease

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Motor neurone disease is an incredibly cruel and scary illness. It can strike anyone at any time. It can knock young and healthy people down in their prime. What makes this disease so frightening is the fear of the unknown. There is no cure for it. We do not know why it occurs. All that makes it even more remarkable that so many brave people suffering from MND find the courage to speak out candidly and publicly about their condition. I pay tribute to all those who campaign so passionately to find a cure, especially those who suffer from the awful effects that the disease causes to them personally. In this debate, however, I want to highlight one particular inspirational person who suffers from MND, and whom I am proud to say I represent as his Member of Parliament in the Scottish Borders.

Long before he was told he had MND six years ago, my constituent Doddie Weir was a hero to people across the Borders and all over Scotland, but he has become even more of a hero since his diagnosis. In his playing days he was a tartan colossus, a giant of Scottish sport. He was a big character on the pitch at Murrayfield—once famously described by the Scottish commentator Bill McLaren as being

“on the charge like a mad giraffe”.

However, Doddie is an even bigger character off the park. He lives his life to the fullest, even now. His positive energy is infectious. When anyone has been around Doddie, they are happier for it. He fought hard every time he took to the rugby pitch, and he continues to fight, even harder, on his mission to find a cure for MND.

I cannot say enough how much I admire Doddie for remaining relentlessly positive, no matter what life throws at him. Receiving an honorary degree earlier this year in Scotland, he said:

“Six years later, still fighting, still pushing for that cure, and still winning with every new day. If things don’t go your way, don’t give up. Instead, use your tremendous energy and brains, try again. There’s always a way round, another way to achieve your goals—find it.”

We owe it to Doddie and everyone in his position to keep fighting for a cure, and we owe it to Doddie to listen closely to his frank assessment of the Government’s funding for research. He said recently that the Government needed to act with more urgency. He said that the fight for a cure was

“definitely getting better but the government has not given MND the money they promised.”

He also said:

“The current process for accessing the money is just not delivering for the MND community. It needs to be streamlined or the professors will spend their valuable time writing multiple applications instead of tackling MND.”

Last year, the Government made a generous and welcome commitment to invest £50 million in motor neurone disease research. I was incredibly proud to play my part in pushing for that funding towards a cure for the devastating disease. That victory, won overwhelmingly by Doddie’s relentless campaigning, was a wonderful display of compassionate government; it is one of the finest actions that this Conservative Government have taken.

But just as Doddie never stopped on the pitch and continues never to stop loving life, we must keep pushing to make sure that this vital funding reaches the frontline faster. Today I want to urge the Government and the Minister to listen to Doddie and do what he asks—not just for his sake, but for every patient in need of some hope. I urge them to provide more resources for MND research, to improve the process and to deliver on our promises. Let us continue to play our part in finding a cure for this awful disease.

Childhood Cancer Outcomes

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I shall talk about research in a moment, but childhood cancer research is currently the Cinderella of cancer research and we need to do much more to address that.

Once a child has been diagnosed, the gruelling process of treating the cancer begins. Between 1997 and 2018, only 18 new drugs were approved for 22 paediatric oncology indications, and they were generally for quite specific or relapse cases. That means many children are often given the same treatments as adults—incredibly aggressive chemotherapies and radiotherapies—and in many cases children’s treatments have not changed for decades. Even if the cancer is beaten, the child’s body is often so ravaged by the treatment as to leave long-term impacts from which they may never recover.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking remarkably passionately about this important issue, about which many of my constituents have been in touch with me. They include Julie and her son George, and Leah and her son Toby—both children are suffering and living with cancer. Does my hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done when children finish the course of treatment to support not only the child but the family, in terms of their recovery from the physical and emotional impact of the treatment?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: there is such a huge impact on families who support a child through cancer and we need to look at how we support them in the round.

I have heard from parents of children who are known as cancer free—so they are probably counted as a success statistically—yet some of them are still in hospital because of the disastrous impact of the treatment itself. Very many survivors are left with long-term hormone deficiencies, some of which are life threatening. Survivors can also experience neurological, behavioural, cognitive and visual impairment. The St Jude Hospital in the United States takes an annual survey of former patients. By the age of 50, they all—100% of them—have life-altering health issues, from fertility issues to severe neuro-disability. I would love to know whether similar surveys happen here and whether the conclusions are the same.

As other Members have said, it is vital to find better treatments specifically for children, which means better research is vital. Children’s cancer is fundamentally different from adult cancer in that so much of it is developmental rather than environmental. The good news is that progress is within our reach—there is so much potential in immunotherapy and genomics—and the even better news is that the UK has a fantastic research community and the most comprehensive database of childhood cancer genomes anywhere in the world. The bad news is that paediatric oncology research is the absolute backwater of cancer sciences. It does not have the focus, the money, the public relations or the prestige of other forms of research. Until there is a concerted effort to change that, children like Sophie will be failed.

I expect the Minister to tell me today that great progress has been made on the cancer survival rate among children. Seventy years ago, children simply did not recover or survive a cancer diagnosis; now around 80% do. But the figures belie the fact that for many cancers, including the rhabdomyosarcoma that killed Sophie, the survival rate is as low as 20%. For another cancer, DIPG—diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, which is a form of brain tumour—the survival rate is 0%. It is literally a death sentence. Can you imagine being that child? Can you imagine being that parent?

There is no doubt that research investment drives survival rates. Since 1960, the survival rate for childhood leukaemia has improved from 10% to 80%. By contrast, only two multinational clinical trials have ever taken place for rhabdomyosarcoma. With only 60 cases diagnosed in the UK per year, there is very little scientific evidence or appetite to develop and complete clinical trials. It is of no interest to big pharma. So we need to look much more imaginatively at how the National Institute for Health and Care Research can encourage more research in such types of cancer.

We also need to look at how new treatments can be brought forward much more quickly. I met Kevin and Karen, who lost their son Christopher just days before his sixth birthday from an aggressive form of brain tumour. They raised concerns about the EU paediatric regulations, which they feel are outdated and do not reflect the latest technological advances. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to produce new legislation that will incentivise world-leading pharmaceutical products, especially for children, and we need to take that opportunity.

Today, I ask the Minister to start a children’s cancer mission. We have seen from the incredible work on brain cancer inspired by our much-loved former colleague Tessa Jowell how much progress can be made when we are galvanised to bring together the best of Governments, charities, research, academics, medical and science into centres of excellence.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of helping the whole world to acquire these life-saving vaccines. That is why the UK can be proud of the more than 30 million vaccines that it has delivered to developing countries already. We will meet our commitment to increase that to 100 million by June, but we do not agree with the suggestion about the TRIPS waiver, because it will make future access to life-saving vaccines much more difficult.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T6. I was delighted by the recent announcement of £50 million for motor neurone disease research, which my constituent Doddie Weir campaigned for tirelessly. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the steps being taken to allocate those funds, and to ensure that is done as quickly as possible, as time is of the essence for MND sufferers?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I commend him on the fantastic work that he has done in leading this campaign. We were delighted to announce £50 million of funding for MND research. That will support a new MND research unit, which has already started work to co-ordinate research applications, and a new MND partnership, which will be formed to pool expertise across the research community.