---

Cancer Outcomes in the UK

My Lords, I, too, most warmly congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate. I always think health matters should be handled by a former president of a royal college, and it is excellent that we have another former president of a royal college with us today. This should be a criterion for joining the Lords, and we should have far more of them. I declare my interests. Many noble Lords know that I have been involved in the appointment of key leaders of eminent health and academic institutions for the past 26 years or so. I should also say that I am the mother of a gynaecologist and the grandmother of a medical student.

Cancer is one of those issues that tells us quickly and clearly whether a health system can turn scientific excellence into public benefit. The Government are right to call cancer performance a tide on which all ships rise. They are also right to say that science and innovation will be the engine of our reinvention. I thought the noble Baroness was going to talk about universities and academic research, which she would have had greater right to do.

These are not casual phrases; they are statements of national ambition and they are fully justified. England remains a country of distinguished scientific and clinical strength. We are capable of world-class discovery, trials and research leadership. The challenge now is whether that strength is translated reliably into public benefit—faster diagnosis, quicker access to treatment and more equal outcomes, as the noble Lord said, for patients across the country.

There is much in the national cancer plan that deserves genuine welcome. It is more serious than many previous strategies about research, clinical trials and innovation. It commits to research remaining

“an enabler for the lifetime of the plan”.

It promises annual progress reporting and sets out in-depth three-year reviews, which is the right direction. It also sharpens the real test before us: it is no longer simply whether England can produce excellent cancer research, which we can; the tough question is whether we are as good at adoption as we are at discovery. It is whether Ministers can show, in practical terms, who is responsible for each research priority, by when and by what measure of success they will be judged.

As noble Lords are aware, the central issue is translation. We know that this country can lead in genomics, diagnostics, cancer biology and trial design. The harder test is whether innovation travels quickly enough from the laboratory bench to the clinic, and then from the great research centres to the district hospitals and the patient, who is anxiously and often fearfully waiting. This is the point at which scientific strength either becomes public benefit or remains trapped as potential.

The Institute of Cancer Research puts this with admirable clarity. Professor Kristian Helin warns:

“Cancer research cannot succeed in isolation. It relies on a strong life sciences and higher education ecosystem, underpinned by world-class infrastructure, sustainable investment and access to the best skills and talent”.

Can the Minister say who, across government, is responsible for making sure that research, universities, immigration, infrastructure and NHS reform are pulling in the same direction? I quickly pay credit to the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who has been the most wonderful advocate and leader in this sector. Ministers of whichever department would pay respect to his contribution.

Cancer Research UK—I pay tribute to its chair, who will have much more to say on this, or he may talk about his experience as chief executive of the NHS—makes a similar point in more practical language. Will this plan be the turning point for cancer that patients deserve? It will require much faster progress. The next step must be translating it into delivery—a telling phrase: delivery, not declaration. Have we heard it

before? We have, but this time it needs to happen. When will we see the full implementation architecture behind the research and innovation elements of the plan? In plain English, when will we know where responsibility sits, what resources are attached and what would count as success or failure by the midpoint of the plan?

We have been warned before that the problem is not only strategy but consistency. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about Denmark. Summarising research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Professor Ellen Nolte said that

“sustained and consistent strategic planning and investment are crucial”.

That is not a throwaway line; it is one of the clearest lessons from comparative success. Countries that improved did not merely publish attractive plans. They backed them, refreshed them and stayed with them. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that this cancer plan will be treated not as a launch but as a governing discipline? What protections are there against the familiar pattern in which bold strategic language is followed by uneven implementation and fading attention?

Clinical trials are crucial, and this is where it becomes real for patients. The plan says that

“every cancer patient gets the opportunity to access relevant clinical trials quickly, fairly and easily”.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s important review, which set out 27 recommendations and argued that the NHS should become

“the world’s leading platform for health and life sciences research”.

There has indeed been genuine progress, for which I pay tribute to the Government.

The Government report that the average set-up time for commercial, interventional, clinical trials has fallen from 169 to 122 days. That is dramatic. The latest UK clinical research delivery data shows that 71% of commercial contract CTIMPs applying between April and September 2025 recruited a first participant within 150 days. These are steps in the right direction.

The MHRA and the wider system also deserve credit. The Government say that trial applications received rose by 9% between January and November last year, compared with the previous year. Scientific advice meetings on clinical trials rose by 75%. This is real improvement and should be acknowledged, but of course speed is only one part of the story; fairness also matters. Who hears about the trial? Who lives near enough to join it? Who can manage the travel, time off work and family pressures that participation involves? Can the Minister commit to publishing participation data by geography, deprivation and ethnicity—the noble Lord made this point—so that the House can judge whether access is truly widening?

The question becomes sharper still. Cancer Research UK warns that around 90% of patients are recruited to non-commercial studies. The plan gives too little assurance that these trials will not be left behind. The ABPI’s latest report shows why that matters. The number of new industry trials initiated in the UK encouragingly rose last year.

I see that I need to speak faster. I want to say something about workforce, because the Minister has been asked very clearly about that. Obviously, it is a

critical factor. I cite the Royal College of Physicians, the Society of Radiographers and many others. We need the people to make it happen. Were the Minister able to have another debate, I could give the rest of my speech.

England’s cancer challenge is less about what we can discover and more about what we can translate. We know that this requires the NHS, industry, academia and charities working together, and I believe that, with determination, we can see real progress.

4.16 pm