Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Arthur]

Exactly. In a former life, I was an academic. UKRI does at times engage with academics to fine-tune such questions. UKRI provides funding to universities, if needed, to bring the very best people to the UK either temporarily or on longer-term contracts to help to make a difference in the UK. Those things are perhaps all part of the solution. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I am grateful for the opportunity to support this vital debate. It shines much-needed light on a disease that is still under-resourced, as has been said, and it honours the legacy of a woman who dedicated her final years to fighting it: the late Susan Michaelis. I was not fortunate enough to meet her but, as a result of the excellent introduction of the hon. Member for Horsham, I feel I know a little bit about her and her character. I am grateful for that introduction.

Lobular breast cancer, despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, has historically received a mere 1% of breast cancer research funding. Susan refused to accept that disparity and the Lobular Moon Shot Project is her legacy—but it has to be more than a project. Hopefully, progress will be her real legacy. The project demands better treatment for every woman who receives a lobular breast cancer diagnosis. That is why all of us are in the Chamber for this debate.

I recently received an incredibly powerful letter from a leading oncologist, Dr Michie. She is based in Edinburgh, treats patients in Scotland and works closely with the community of those with lobular breast cancer. She expressed deep professional frustration on behalf of her patients, explicitly stating that lobular breast cancer has been neglected for too long. People who meet patients day in, day out and week in, week out still have a real frustration about the lack of progress. Dr Michie’s letter also highlighted the fact that lobular breast cancer is different from the more common ductal types of breast cancer, with an entirely unique tumour biology, different responses to drug treatments, and distinct and highly challenging patterns of spread.

The different response to drug treatments is really important because, in the absence of proper treatments, women are often faced with a drug that was not actually designed for the condition that they have. Yet clinical trials rarely even present separate response data for lobular cases: today a grand total of zero lobular-specific clinical trials are actively recruiting patients in the UK. That should shame us, based on what we have discussed already in this debate, and on the scale and breadth of the campaign that has been run.

Additionally, the incidence of lobular breast cancer is rising rapidly, climbing by nearly 3% annually. Because it does not form the typical lump, it is notoriously difficult to detect using classical imaging. That is 3% annual growth in diagnoses of this condition—I know that, as a Government, we are really keen on growth but not that kind. To fix it, we need to improve our pre-clinical understanding of how and why the disease spreads. I believe that the work package plan of the Lobular Moon Shot Project is precisely the kind of ambitious and collaborative plan that can help us to improve patient outcomes across the board. If people do not believe that, let us have a conversation about how it can be improved.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member speaks about the value of research. Some 50 years ago this year, my cousin was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had three years. She left five children under the age of 10. Yesterday I met Lesley, who was diagnosed 20 years ago. Lesley is well. She is still receiving treatment, but that demonstrates the value of the advances that research can make. Does the hon. Member agree that it is absolutely vital that we invest in this area?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. Yesterday I met with activists from Cancer Research UK just outside Parliament, before they came in. Cancer Research UK had around 100 activists there who had been touched by cancer, in all its shapes and forms, and although that big room was full of people who were full of energy, they were just a tiny part of the footprint of cancer and its impacts across the UK—absolutely tip-of-the-iceberg stuff.

We have to acknowledge the emotional impact on individuals and families, but also the economic impact. We should never be ashamed of talking about that. There is also the economic impact of bringing the best research to the UK so that our laboratories, universities and hospitals can work on this issues. All that is a push in the right direction.

The Government and the bio-sciences sector are notoriously slow-moving. We need to expedite work in this area; a dedicated funding commitment from the Government to launch the Moon Shot Project would help do that. When we talk about housing, we talk about being builders not blockers. Maybe we should use the same narrative and energy for this matter.

On a related note, while the fight for a new funding model is critical, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of immediate and compassionate support for people who have the condition. In my constituency we are incredibly fortunate to have the House of Hope, a wonderful charity that provides a safe space for women navigating a breast cancer diagnosis and for their families, including their husbands and children. As I understand it, they plan to start a support group to focus specifically on lobular breast cancer, which will meet for the first time on 11 August. I wish them well in that endeavour and I am wearing my House of Hope badge today. They actually gave me three badges with different designs, but I went for the glittery one because we all need a bit of glitter in our lives sometimes.

I have always found the House of Hope to be an incredibly inspiring and hospitable place. I encourage any woman with a diagnosis in Edinburgh and the Lothians or further afield to check out the services it provides. I am sure the Minister would be welcome to visit any time and I can guarantee him it will be cooler in Edinburgh than it is in London right now.

I return to Susan and her project. A clear and fundamental shift is needed in how we fund and prioritise research into this condition. I strongly encourage the Minister to actively engage with the project’s demands, meet with the campaign and agree a plan going forward for how we can address their concerns. As has been said already, 22 women will be diagnosed with this condition today and we need to give them and their families hope.

I checked Hansard this morning: in the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, lobular breast cancer was mentioned 10 times. Just two years into the current Parliament, we have mentioned it 56 times. We need to stop talking about it in this place and actually start getting stuff done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing today’s debate, and to the Members from across the House who have given their voice to this campaign over a number of years. It is entirely right that Parliament should pause today to consider not just the science, the policy and the funding, but the human reality that sits behind all three of those things.

Behind the words “lobular breast cancer” are people who knew something was wrong, but the system could not prove it. That is the point at the heart of today’s debate. This is not a call for special treatment or a demand that we place one cancer above another; it is a recognition that different cancers behave differently, present differently and may require different approaches if we are serious about improving outcomes.

Today, we are also remembering Dr Susan Michaelis. Many people in public life are described as courageous, but in Susan’s case that word feels insufficient. She was, as we have heard, a commercial pilot, a researcher, a campaigner, a wife and a woman whose instinct, when faced with injustice or uncertainty, was not to turn away from it but to investigate it. She had already devoted much of her professional life to public safety, particularly in the aviation sector. We have heard about how she challenged assumptions, gathered evidence and pursued truth in an area where the consequences mattered for passengers, crews and the wider public. In 2013, she received her devastating diagnosis of invasive lobular breast cancer. As we have heard today, her symptoms were not dramatic; they presented as just a tiny mark on her breast.

Two mammograms and two ultrasounds failed to identify the disease, and it was ultimately identified by an MRI scan. We have heard how that revealed what appeared to be a relatively small lesion of about inch that was later confirmed to be over 7 cm. That single account tells us why this debate continues to matter and shows the particular challenge of a cancer that can be harder to detect through standard imaging.

Remarkably, Susan did not live her final years in retreat from the world; she continued with her work and her research, and continued campaigning. As we have heard, nine days before her death, she travelled to Manchester to help launch the scientific programme for the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project, knowing full well that any breakthrough would come too late for her. That is an extraordinary act of generosity and a challenge to all of us in this place. If someone is living with advanced cancer and can spend her final days and the last of her strength ask for progress for others, surely it is our responsibility and Government to find the clarity and urgency to respond.

As we have heard, lobular breast cancer is not rare. It is the second most common type of breast cancer, accounting for around 15% of cases, but despite that it too often remains hidden in plain sight.

[Seamus Logan]

This is not a party-political issue; it is something the shadow Minister and the whole House can agree on. In 2022, the Scottish Government began the process of improving their imaging kits with the introduction of 3D mammography, which is a major step forward. Two months ago, the Scottish Parliament lodged a motion supporting the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project and called for the £20 million to be allocated. Does he agree that the breadth of support for this campaign—440 MPs now support it, including myself—is now irresistible, and that the Minister should award the funding?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman is right; there is collective support for doing more on this issue. That starts with getting the research right. Without the research, we do not know how to plan for the treatments of the future. I will move on to the other points, but he is also entirely right that this is not a party-political issue, but one that affects all of us and all of our constituents. We have to work with a sense of urgency around it.

As we have heard, the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project is looking for £20 million over five years to advance the understanding of invasive lobular breast cancer and to support better detection, treatment and surveillance. We cannot dispute that that is a significant sum, but we have to look at it in the context of national health spending and what cancer costs: the cost to families and patients and the cost to the NHS when it is detected late or treated inadequately. We have to bear those factors in mind.

We should also be clear about what research funding means in practice. It does not mean a guarantee of easy answers. Science does not work like that, but it does mean giving our best minds the chance to ask the right questions. It means building the evidence base and moving beyond a generic understanding of breast cancer and towards a more precise understanding of this specific disease. That is the direction of travel that we have seen over a number of years in modern healthcare. We have seen it in genomics and targeted therapies and we see it in the increasing recognition that treatment must be shaped by the biology of the disease and the needs of the patient. There is no reason that lobular breast cancer should be left behind in that progress.

There has been movement—it is right to acknowledge that. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has issued a highlight notice encouraging applications for research into lobular breast cancer; the Government have published their own national cancer plan; and the Health Bill speaks of research duties and innovation. Those are by no means meaningless, but they are not yet enough. That is why today’s debate must focus on delivery, so I ask the Minister whether the Government will set out a timeline to fund the lobular breast cancer Moon Shot Project. If the answer is yes, campaigners deserve to know how and through what mechanism that will happen. If the answer is no, they deserve an honest explanation. Is it a financial barrier? Is it a scientific one? Is it procedural? Are the Government waiting for further proposals, reviews or assessments? The people who have campaigned with such dignity on this issue should not be left trying to decode in silence.

I also ask the Minister to address the issue of guidance. Lobular breast cancer is referred to only in limited form in existing national breast cancer guidance, and campaigners have called for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to review whether the guidance properly reflects the disease. That guidance, of course, shapes clinical practice and influences what clinicians look for, what tests are considered and how treatment is approached. If the evidence is not yet strong enough to support separate recommendations, that should strengthen the case for targeted research, not weaken it. We cannot use the absence of evidence as a reason not to gather it. That would be a circular argument. The patients affected by this disease deserve much better.

There is also a wider lesson here about women’s health. Too often women’s symptoms have been dismissed as vague, complex or difficult to categorise. Too often women have had to become their own advocates at the very moment when they are frightened, unwell and least able to fight. One duty of a good health system is to reduce the burden on the patient and prove that they are worth listening to. Susan Michaelis understood that deeply. As we heard earlier, on 24 June last year, while on oxygen and clearly in pain, she stood outside Downing Street as part of a silent vigil representing the 22 people diagnosed every day with lobular breast cancer in the United Kingdom. She delivered a letter asking for help. Two weeks later she died wearing her Lobular Moon Shot Project T-shirt. That is an image that should stay with all of us today, not because policies should be made on emotion alone—clearly they should not. Policy has to be evidence-based, financially responsible and clinically sound. But should policy not be stripped of a moral seriousness, either. Evidence tells us what may work. Compassion reminds us why we keep working. Responsibility requires us to bring those two factors together.

The last Government invested in cancer research, including support for the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden biomedical research centre, along with wider work relevant to lobular breast cancer. In opposition we have continued to press the Government on the Moon Shot Project, including through the shadow health team and other colleagues. But this should not, as we have discussed, become a party political contest. Cancer does not observe party lines, and neither should our determination to improve the outcomes for patients.

The test for the Government is relatively simple. Can they turn sympathy into a plan? Can they gave campaigners a clear route forward? Can they match the scale of the problem with a response that is specific, funded and time-bound? What those affected by lobular breast cancer need is not another expression of admiration for their bravery and courage. They need progress: a system that sees their cancer sooner, treatments shaped by its biology, surveillance that reflects the risk of recurrence and spread, guidance that recognises the particular character of the disease and research funded at a level that gives discovery a fair chance.

Susan Michaelis gave the final chapter of her life to this cause. She did so not for herself, but for women she would never meet and families she would never know. That legacy is worthy of more than a mere tribute; it is worthy of action. I hope the Minister will leave this debate having listened carefully, but also prepared to act decisively. The Government should not only meet the campaigners, but set out the remaining barriers, publish a route to a decision and make clear whether they will fund the Moon Shot project. Dr Susan Michaelis spent her life making hidden risks visible; the task before us now is to ensure that lobular breast cancer is hidden no longer.

Department of Health and Social Care

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on the NHS estimates and, in particular, the impact of the UK-US pharmaceutical deal.

Let me start by briefly talking about the estimates themselves. I am sure that every Member has a copy of them; I have one every year. Given that we spend £211 billion on the NHS, it is rather extraordinary that £201 billion of that is simply two lines in this document. Last year, I made a request of the Department of Health and Social Care, in the light of the deal, that we get not just a better breakdown of the costs of the deal, but, more importantly, the ability to scrutinise the estimates.

The Treasury’s own guidance says that the information in the estimates should be “informative” to readers. We can all read it, but—goodness me!—it tells us absolutely nothing. My request of the Department again, and much more publicly, is to sort this issue out. Other Departments do this much better, so there is no reason why we cannot. The information exists; it is a question of putting it correctly in a spreadsheet.

Today, I hope that we will discuss the pharmaceutical deal. I have to admit that I had seen stuff about the deal, but it was not until a whistleblower came to my surgery that I really began to understand the implications of it. They said:

“I am a doctor, a public health specialist, and a NICE employee. I am deeply concerned by the plan to change the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. I continue to believe that the NHS would be better off if ministers decide to scrap their original plan to spend more on new, less good value medicines, and used the money instead to provide basic things that we already know are good value, but don’t manage to provide adequately.”

Let us start by explaining what this deal does. It is worth mentioning that it is not a free trade agreement. That is quite important, because we will not get the normal mechanisms of scrutiny. This is one of the only ways that we can scrutinise it. We certainly do not get a proper vote on it. Different Committees of this House have raised that as a key point, so I am delighted that we are able to discuss it.

The deal agrees with the USA that there will be no tariffs on UK pharma exports until January 2029, and we have agreed a series of measures in return. The most important of those, which was raised by my whistleblower, is the changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. We must remember that NICE was set up as an independent body of Government to make health economics assessments for treatment and medicines, to maximise value for money. I do not need to remind the Minister that providing value for money for the taxpayer is in the NHS constitution.

The Government gave themselves powers to direct NICE on cost-effectiveness thresholds, raising them from £20,000 to £30,000 up to £25,000 to £35,000 for each quality-adjusted life year. In plain speech, that is basically the amount of money that we would spend on a medicine to increase people’s good life expectancy by one year.

Historically, the NHS has had a very good deal on medicines. That is in part because of where the QALY is set; in fact, research has been done that suggests that we could have put the figure even lower. It is not a budget, and does not have to increase with inflation. Some have made that case, and I will come back to that point in a moment.

The second part of my speech relates to changes to the rebate mechanism. There is a voluntary agreement between the British pharmaceutical industry companies, and the NHS caps the amount that it spends on branded medicines. If the NHS spends more, it claws back some of the money from those companies. Under the deal, the UK Government are limiting that to 15%, which is down from 22.9%. Let us put those two things together: we have the NHS paying more for medicines, and receiving less back through rebates.

There is an agreement in the deal that the UK will increase support for life sciences and spending on new medicines from 0.3% of GDP to 0.6% of GDP by 2036. That is an increase of spending on medicines, particularly, from 10% to 12% of the NHS budget.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and is trying to draw out the details of this deal; I am glad that one of her constituents drew her attention to it. I was lobbied by Karl Claxton at the University of York, who described this deal as an existential threat to the NHS because of the potential costs. Interestingly, the Department has not yet published its impact assessment on the deal. Does she agree that it is high time that the Department published the impact assessment and let us know the true cost of the deal?

[Layla Moran]

I believe that by the end of my speech, the hon. Gentleman and I will be in violent agreement, if we are not already. There is one more aspect of this, incidentally: the supply chains deal, which I understand is being crafted. We do not have time to go into that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue—it is an important angle on a problem of which we are all aware, but in a slightly different context, given some of the modern features that are available on the devices in our pockets. I will look into it further and pick it up with him in due course.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Many Members in this place will be all too familiar with the trauma of a miscarriage; for some, the tragedy occurs more than once. Scotland is the first nation in the UK to implement a miscarriage patient charter, based on the so-called Tommy’s graded model of miscarriage care. Will the new Secretary of State—I welcome him to his place—outline whether the Westminster Government are considering replicating that system in the rest of the UK?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that incredibly sensitive and important issue. As a Government, we want to ensure that, through the NHS, we are supporting women who suffer miscarriages and their families. We will make sure that we have the right provision to support them, and that the NHS and wider health system are there for them when they need that help.

NHS Federated Data Platform

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech, demonstrating tremendous technical expertise.

This £330 million deal signed in 2023 with controversial American spy tech firm Palantir to use its tech on the federated data platform may turn out to be another gigantic waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is not just about money; it is also a moral and ethical misstep, given this firm’s links to work with the Israeli military and with the disgraced US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency—so-called ICE. Members and the general public will be aware that health data provided for one purpose has been used to track, detain and deport so-called illegal immigrants in America.

There are now persistent reports that issues of trust in the NHS among the wider public over this firm’s clear breach of data protection may lead the Government to use a break clause in the contract in 2027 to prevent renewal of this seven-year deal. I know that the BMA is not on the Secretary of State’s Christmas card list, or possibly the Minister’s, but he would do well to note the briefing it issued only yesterday, in which it calls for the use of the break clause and the retendering of this contract. If the Government are serious about tech sovereignty and investing in UK tech and AI, that is what they must do.

The roll-out of Scotland’s MyCare.scot app begins this month, with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care describing it as the “most comprehensive” NHS app in the UK, created in-house and free from dodgy tech giants. I see the Minister laughing, but I want to reinforce that point, because it was made today by the First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, at the launch of our manifesto.

To be fair, Palantir says that it will not use health data outwith the NHS as it would constitute a breach of contract and would, of course, be illegal, but England faces the rise of a political party that could change the law to suit its political purposes and ride roughshod over our basic privacy and human rights protections. If Members do not believe me, they should look at the US of A.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will clarify in his response whether the situation is under review, and I urge the Government to reconsider their position, to implement the break clause next year and to invest in our own solutions, just as Scotland is doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

I am going to carry on for a bit longer.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) tempts me with his speech, and he knows that I cannot resist his temptation. He spoke about Scotland and he will know that I am an NHS surgeon in Scotland. I hope he thinks that I can speak with some authority about the NHS in Scotland, so let me tell him a few things about the digital architecture in the NHS there.

The NHS app has been running successfully in England for over eight years. Three out of four people in the NHS in England have that app. To clarify, the app is not Palantir; it has been devised organically on the ground by NHS England—by clinicians and by technologists. It now serves millions of patients to book test results, screenings and appointments—including GP appointments —to end the 8 am rush.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East spoke about the MyCare app in Scotland. That remains a far-fetched dream rather than a reality. The limit of the ambition of that app seems to be, as I understand it, a dermatology service in one part of Scotland called Lanarkshire, for those who are not familiar with Scotland. It is a million miles away from what has been developed down here in England.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Ahmed]

I will not; I am going to carry on—and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something further. The NHS in England was quite happy to use the expertise of technologists up and down the country, including in Scotland—including, in my own constituency of Glasgow South West, a company called Cohesion Medical. His Government in Scotland, who have been in government for over 20 years, refused that offer. That is why my patients and constituents in Scotland are unable to access simple digital services. It is why my patients and my constituents under NHS Scotland are 30 times more likely to wait over two years for treatment. It is why my patients and my constituents in Scotland are unable to access optimal stroke therapy and lung cancer screening.

The NHS federated data platform in England connects health information held in different systems, helping to manage activity to improve productivity and outcomes. By connecting critical data streams, it can accelerate diagnosis pathways, streamline discharge processes and ensure faster, more co-ordinated care that reduces waiting times for all patients.

I will briefly describe a couple of examples. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust uses an FDP product called OPTICA to map the patient’s journey from being admitted to going home. It used to be done with spreadsheets, which were not always updated. Because of that, discharges were delayed, medicines were not sorted on time—in some cases time-critical medicines, causing real patient harm—and patients were therefore impacted. OPTICA lets the trust see all that information in one place in real time. It has reduced the number of long stays by a third, and despite a 7% increase in admissions over that time, we are improving services overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

At the Mersey and West Lancashire teaching hospitals NHS trust, they are using the FDP to better manage the lists for planned surgery. That allows surgeons like me to operate on more people each day, and it is cutting waiting lists. This has been achieved through better use of data. It is a timely reminder that in England we are improving productivity in the national health service, getting more operations done per list and getting closer to pre-covid levels of activity. The same cannot be said for Scotland under the SNP Government.

[Seamus Logan]

Rather than giving so much of his speech to cheap political points about Scotland, can the Minister answer the question that was put to him several times by several Members: are the Government considering a review of the break clause next year?

[Dr Ahmed]

If the hon. Gentleman had read the details of any contract that the Government have negotiated, whether it is this one or the previous one, he would know that the break clause is there for a reason. Of course we evaluate value for money at those times. He used the word “cheap”, but let me tell him something: it is not cheap to have to wait over two years for NHS treatment in Scotland, which is 30 times more likely to happen than in England. That is why on 7 May the NHS in Scotland can get an upgrade with Anas Sarwar as First Minister and Jackie Baillie as Health Secretary.

The FDP is helping people get the care they need more quickly and more efficiently. As a programme, it is a success. The FDP has exceeded every single target since its go-live date in March 2024, and 137 NHS trusts are actively utilising the platform and have reported benefits. The programme is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast, with external independent experts validating these results.

NHS England publishes data on how the FDP has benefited patients and the NHS. The data collected up to the end of March will be published in May. I can share the figures with Members now. Since the go-live date in March 2024, more than 100,000 additional patients have been supported to undergo procedures in theatres, partly due to increasing theatre utilisation. Nearly 94,000 people have been supported on their cancer journey, with 7% seeing a reduction in the time taken to diagnose their cancer. There has also been a 14% decrease in delays to discharging patients staying in hospital for more than seven days, freeing up hospital beds for those who need them most.

The last Government awarded the Palantir contract on the basis of a successful bid that was deemed to be significantly better, and by a significant order of magnitude, than those of its competitors. It was judged the most economically advantageous and likely to deliver the best-quality outcome for patients. The contract was awarded with an overall value of up to £330 million over a maximum of the seven-year term. So far, £210 million has been invested, as we scale up. The benefits of the FDP are exceeding those we forecast, as I have already outlined, but—

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

I commend my hon. Friend on her great work campaigning for her coastal community in East Thanet. The national cancer plan sets out how we will make sure that everyone has timely access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services by increasing medical training places in rural and coastal areas. The national cancer plan will save 320,000 lives over the next decade and deliver the fastest improvement in cancer survival in UK history.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Cancer patients, like so many other patients, are worried and concerned about the resident doctors strike in England, which is reportedly costing around £50 million a day, not to mention its impact on waiting lists. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we have a Health Secretary and a Government who are competent in negotiations and have none of this industrial action. The final bill for this industrial relations shambles could be as high as £3 billion. What can the Secretary of State reveal to the House about the special skills he has in dealing with the BMA?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Patients are 30 times more likely to wait two years for care in Scotland than in England. Labour has ended austerity and provided Scotland with the biggest funding increase since devolution. The question is: where has the money gone?

Disability Equipment Provision

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.

I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office, which oversees the ballot that leads to the selection of debate topics. I am truly very pleased to have secured this debate to provide us all with the opportunity to shine a light on the issues that many people across the country are facing in accessing disability equipment.

I particularly welcome Milana Hadji-Touma, who is representing herself and a number of others today; I thank her for attending. I also thank the 653 people who have shared their experiences and provided moving testimonials, which have been invaluable in my preparation for this debate. I appreciate the time and energy that has gone into each response, and I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for all those who contributed.

I want to begin by offering some quotes from the responses, including some from my constituents:

“My daughter had to wait two years for her wheelchair.”

“I wouldn’t be able to function without my stairlift, my powered wheelchair and my crutches.”

“It is about my safety, my dignity and my ability to live independently.”

“I use a shower chair and a toilet frame which might seem small items but they have transformed my day to day safety and confidence.”

“With the correct equipment, I was able to complete a master's degree at a top university, become a teacher, learn to drive, hand cycle across eleven countries and live a full and rich life.”

Around 25% of the UK population are disabled, so access to disability equipment is essential. It alleviates everyday struggles and allows thousands of people to live safe and independent lives, which boosts personal confidence and mental wellbeing. Whether it is wheelchairs, living aids or home-adaptation items like grab rails, the devices offer numerous and powerful benefits, transforming lives so that the activities of daily life become more manageable, both for those dealing with disabling conditions and for those who provide care, including family members, friends and care workers.

Those benefits were echoed throughout my survey. One respondent stated:

“My disability equipment is my entire life”,

while another reported:

“It simplifies tasks, turns impossible activities into manageable ones with the right support, eases physical pain, reduces moments of embarrassment or vulnerability, and—most importantly—fosters greater independence and less dependence on others.”

Despite the benefits, 64% of respondents revealed that waiting times for disability equipment were longer than expected. As I said, one person reported that their daughter waited for a wheelchair for nearly two years, while one of my constituents highlighted the issues that arise from delayed equipment provision, stating:

“Without proper assessment and provision, disabled people can be left living in environments that actively worsen their health or place them at risk of injury.”

The testimonies I have shared show that there is a growing belief that the system to provide disability equipment is becoming increasingly unsustainable. With complaints about waiting times, quality of equipment and poor communication around access, it is no surprise that over 650 people responded to my survey in the space of four days. In addition, hundreds more people gave testimonies to inform the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment, published last October. Among stories of frustration and disappointment, the report revealed that 63% of carers and 55% of equipment users felt that services were getting worse.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I agree with absolutely everything he has said. He talks about the problem with access to equipment; I know of one case, which is representative of many that come across my desk, that concerns the inability to hand back equipment after use. A constituent contacted me whose mother had died after two years of home care. She had a hospital bed, three commodes, an orthopaedic chair and a walking frame. The NHS provider had gone into receivership and there was no method whatsoever for her to hand back the equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are compounding the problems for people getting equipment by not reusing the stuff that is already out there?

[Seamus Logan]

I do agree. Indeed, that problem causes a massive cost to the taxpayer as well.

It is no surprise that 74% of equipment providers were aware of patients experiencing delayed hospital discharge due to unavailable community equipment. The APPG’s report recommended and called for the implementation of a national strategy to ensure the cohesive and comprehensive delivery, monitoring and financing of disability equipment.

Complaints about the current system and provision of equipment have been reported by various other organisations, including the UK charity for young wheelchair users, Whizz Kidz, which described wheelchair services as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured.” In June 2025, it was reported that Citizens Advice receives a new complaint about faulty aids every hour.

My own pedigree in this area goes back many years—in fact, to 1996, when I first joined a health and personal social services commissioning organisation, under the leadership of my great friends Mary Wilmont and Kevin Keenan, both former directors of social services in Northern Ireland. We examined in great detail the wheelchair services for people who were deaf or blind, hard of hearing or visually impaired. One report stands out in my memory—not because I authored it, but because it was a simple idea to address the challenges facing people in getting to a hospital appointment. We called it “Getting There”. That was 30 years ago.

Although this Government need to “get there”, the challenges in the existing system are more profound. In England and Wales, the provision of equipment is currently run by the NHS and local authorities, which are primarily responsible for facilitating care needs assessments and subsequently approving and providing equipment. As a result, available equipment, the length of waiting times and the quality of adaptations are increasingly becoming a postcode lottery.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the patchwork system to which he referred is, through delay and dysfunction, denying many disabled people the independence they deserve? A 56-year-old constituent of mine in Somerset with a progressive muscle wasting condition has been left effectively housebound and in severe pain for months while trying to obtain essential wheelchair adaptations. May I appeal to the Minister’s extensive good will and ask him to look at that case?

[Seamus Logan]

I agree with the hon. Member, and that highlights the need for a national strategy and a review of the current organisational arrangements.

Age UK has noted that, due to a lack of national guidelines on timelines, long waiting lists are common, partly due to shortages in that noble profession, occupational therapists. To mitigate the situation, multiple organisations have been set up with the sole purpose of supporting those in need of disability equipment in the face of a failing system. They include Back Up, a UK-wide charity that works with people affected by spinal cord injury and provides vital wheelchair skills training. The Motability Foundation has awarded £36.4 million in grants to customers of its Motability scheme to help them access adequate and good-quality equipment, as many people have resorted to self-funding permanent or temporary equipment. The foundation has also conducted an economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England and recommended that greater integration across services is needed to prevent variation in the quality of provision.

In Scotland, the handling of disability equipment and adaptations is carried out by integrated authorities—united bodies in which local authorities and NHS services work together to provide more cohesive and community-focused health and social care planning. To guide those bodies, the Scottish Government agreed a memorandum of understanding some years ago, setting out a standardised approach for the provision of equipment to maintain consistency across all local councils. During engagement with voluntary organisations in this field, I was told that the Scottish approach is paying dividends. I recommend to the Minister that a similar approach should be considered for implementation in England and Wales, because the system needs change now.

Thousands of people across the UK are sick, sore and tired of being unheard after countless complaints. When will their voices be taken seriously? Greater national leadership is urgently needed to put an end to the insecure and uncertain system in which someone’s ability to obtain necessary life-supporting equipment is based on where they live rather than their need. Everyone has a right to access disability equipment and live a safe and independent life. The pressure is on the UK Government to step up and redesign the system, and respond to the many calls to establish a national strategy.

A consolidated approach holds the potential to improve oversight, reduce waiting times and ensure consistent and reliable access to disability equipment for everyone, no matter where they might live, so let me pose just one simple question to the Minister: in responding to the debate, will he please set out the reasons why he would not agree to take forward a national strategy in this area?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

The breadth of the debate today has demonstrated that an hour is simply not enough to deal with this topic. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, housing and domestic adaptations are a topic all on their own, as is access to work under the DWP. There is also transport to consider; we could have spoken about transport issues for hours.

I am disappointed by the number of Members present for the debate, but of course it has been a very busy day so it is perfectly understandable. However, I encourage colleagues who are present, especially the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, to try to raise this topic with the Backbench Business Committee so that we can get this whole discussion into the main Chamber in future.

I particularly thank the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), as well as all Members who have contributed to the debate today, especially the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the Minister himself. It has been a very busy day for the Government—even a difficult day, at times—so I appreciate his time and the passion with which he spoke about this topic. He genuinely wants to see improvement in this area. If the July 2025 new plan for disability can bring forward a framework, strategy or improvement, we would all very much endorse that.

Finally, I thank the Chamber engagement team. We sometimes take them for granted, but they are responsible for helping parliamentarians such as myself to bring informed debates to the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. I thank them very sincerely. With that, I will close.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.

Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate, and I pay tribute to the members of the public present, who no doubt represent thousands of people online tonight.

The Lyla’s law campaign is a powerful reminder of the devastating consequences of missed or delayed diagnosis for type 1 diabetes in children and young people. It calls for improved education and guaranteed routine testing for children showing early symptoms before they reach diabetic ketoacidosis, which is a life-threatening condition that requires emergency hospital care. Many families and parents learn about their children’s condition only once they have reached this potentially fatal stage. Not only is that traumatic and dangerous, putting a child’s life at risk, but it creates avoidable costs and puts strain on emergency healthcare services. Families should not have to wait for those serious complications to occur for a diagnosis to be made.

Despite this, the UK Government claim that there is still “insufficient evidence” to support routine mandatory testing for type 1 diabetes in babies, toddlers and young children. That is why the petition is so important. It calls for existing NHS guidance, which recommends the immediate testing of children and young people showing symptoms of type 1 diabetes—the fours Ts, which have been mentioned—to be formally legislated for. Current guidance alone is clearly not enough, and a standardised approach for all GPs and doctors is urgently needed.

A member of the Insulin Pump Awareness Group in Scotland recently wrote to me mentioning that they often wonder whether their own diagnosis 29 years ago would have been picked up had they not been made aware of the four Ts symptoms through family.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My West Dunbartonshire constituent Janice shared with me the very personal story of her daughter, who three years ago became so unwell that she was admitted to hospital. She was desperately ill, but she survived. The signs had been there, but they were missed, with the diagnosis coming at the very last moment, in an emergency setting. Will the hon. Member join me in commending the work of Diabetes Scotland and its efforts to improve testing, screening and early diagnosis in Scotland?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Member and endorse his suggestion.

This topic is personally important to me, not only because so many family members have been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes but—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) referred to—because of the premature death in 2022 of my nephew Nick Logan from complications arising from his original diagnosis at the age of 16.

Italy made history in 2023 by becoming the first country to introduce nationwide screening for the early detection of type 1 diabetes in children. In 2021, Scotland also led the way by being the first country to offer C-peptide blood tests to everyone with diabetes to address misdiagnosis. Although that may not be the same as a routine screening programme for type 1 diabetes, it demonstrates how routine testing can be implemented.

Childhood type 1 diabetes rates in the UK are among the highest in the world, ranking fifth globally for children aged 14 and under, according to the International Diabetes Federation. In conclusion, it is essential that the UK Government take a more targeted and strategic approach to improving the care and diagnosis of children and young people showing type 1 diabetes symptoms. That starts with the implementation of routine testing—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order.

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

On behalf of constituents who have written to me, I want to begin by quoting the comments of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Hughes, to the BBC when her report was released two years ago:

“These families weren’t listened to by a system that really turned its back, and fobbed them off with information which led to them not only being harmed, but thousands of others being harmed.”

The Hughes report has still not received a proper response—from either the Conservative Government or current Labour Government—and that is the key. That is deeply disappointing and a massive let-down for all those women and children affected by this scandal. I appreciate that this is an important issue, and it warrants due process, but there has been a two-year wait for a response, not to mention that the wait for the families affected has been so much longer.

Although the Patient Safety Commissioner’s remit extends to England only, this is a UK-wide issue. The regulation of human medicines and medicinal products is reserved. The report said that the Department of Health and Social Care should

“engage with the devolved governments”

on where and how the two-stage redress approach should apply across the UK. The UK Government have indicated that those conversations are taking place. That is encouraging, and I hope that it continues, but we in Scotland have been disappointed by this Government more than once. The well-worn saying applies: justice delayed is justice denied.

This Government promised change, and here is a case in point. The unreserved apology offered by the previous Government in July 2021 was welcome, as was the invitation in December 2022

“to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 478.]

But that was more than three years ago. Of course, this Government rightly deserve praise for acting to redress the problem and offer compensation, albeit slowly in some cases, following the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. Please do not add this situation to that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the nuclear test veterans and others, where successive Governments have taken a negligent approach.

In summary, I am speaking up primarily on behalf of my constituents. We need urgent action on this report and a proper system of redress for the countless families affected by this scandal. Please let us get on with addressing recommendation 4 of the Hughes report without delay. I hope the Minister will address that in her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the complexities of the steps that the Minister is outlining. Nevertheless, in repeated contributions, Members have asked for a timescale, so will the Minister respond by the end of the Session? Will she respond by the autumn? Will she respond by the end of the calendar year? Can she give us some clarification, please?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to answer that at the end of my comments, but first I will take the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Seamus Logan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

That is right. I have to say, many of my counterparts around the world cannot fathom how we ended up in this situation in the first place. They certainly do not do as we have been doing, investing so much in their home-grown talent only to then see that talent compete on equal terms with anyone from anywhere else in the world.

Let me set out why we need this Bill. There are workforce problems that only Government can solve. We know that the treatment of resident doctors has been totally unacceptable for years and we see the training bottlenecks that resident doctors face today. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. This year, that has soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with nearly twice as many overseas-trained applicants as UK-trained ones. As a result, we now have the ridiculous state of affairs where UK medical graduates, whose training British taxpayers fund to the tune of £4 billion a year and who want to carve out a career in their NHS, are either being lost abroad or to the private sector. If we do not deal with that, the scale of the issue and the resentment it causes will just get worse. More taxpayers’ money will be wasted, more British medics will turn their backs on the NHS, and patients and our NHS will ultimately suffer.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State knows that the SNP believes that this is a pragmatic Bill that will have a net-positive outcome for the health service in Scotland. We welcome the Bill and are glad to support it. However, there are specialty fields, such as general practice, which have a high number of international graduates. Because of Government policy, there are significant challenges in supporting the retention of some individuals. For example, the new requirement for settled status is 10 years with some exceptions, whereas training programmes are often only three years long. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want the UK to be a hostile environment for our vital overseas medical staff. Will he therefore make representations to the Home Office so that it is aware of the anomaly?

[Wes Streeting]

I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill does not in any way detract from the fundamental point that the NHS has always been an overseas recruiter and we have always been fortunate to draw on global talent from around the world who come and give through their service, their taxes and their wider contribution to the national health service and our country. We will continue to welcome that and people will continue to be free to apply. In future, they will apply on terms that are fairer to our own, home-grown talent.

There is nothing in what the Home Secretary proposes that will stop people who come through our universities and have the skills that we need to contribute to our health and care system applying for jobs and settling and making the UK their home. The Bill supports the Home Secretary to reduce an over-reliance on overseas talent and labour, which contributes to levels of net migration that even bleeding-heart liberals like me can see are too high. That is the issue that the Home Secretary seeks to deal with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend can be absolutely assured of that. I thank her for her powerful advocacy in this place, as well as for putting her words into action on the NHS frontline. She does not need to do that—she could do the bare minimum to keep her licence going—but she always goes above and beyond to take care of patients and constituents, literally rolling up her sleeves and putting on her scrubs to do that. She has made a number of thoughtful recommendations in her report, and I look forward to engaging with her and the all-party group on that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is able to praise the efforts of NHS staff this Christmas and new year, but there is good news in Scotland, too: waiting lists have fallen for the longest waiters for the sixth month in a row and threatened industrial action by resident doctors has been called off. However, there is anxiety not just in Scotland but across these islands about the new UK-US medicines deal and its impact on the NHS. Will the Secretary of State change his habit this new year with a new year’s resolution and answer my question? Where is the money coming from for the UK-US drugs deal?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question is about waiting lists, and I am sorry but we have got to stick to it. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Logan, I was very good in bringing you in, especially with health being devolved, so please let us not change the question before us. Helen Morgan will be a good example.