Westminster Hall

Monday 15 June 2026

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 740671 relating to personal allowance for state pensioners.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to the petitioner, Tim Mason, and the 120,000 people who have signed the petition, including hundreds in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. I come to this debate with a simple starting principle: those who have worked hard throughout their life should have dignity and security in retirement.

Tim got in touch with me prior to the debate to explain why he created the petition. His story is worth sharing: he receives a pension from the Royal Mail of about £400 per month, but once he receives his state pension, that Royal Mail pension is reduced to about £290 per month. His motivation for starting the petition was that many other pensioners will undoubtedly find themselves in the same position, paying tax on relatively small pensions for which they have worked hard and saved throughout their life.

There are growing concerns that increasing numbers of pensioners are finding themselves liable to pay tax on their pensions. That is because the triple lock has increased the state pension year on year, while personal tax allowances have remained frozen. As a result, some pensioners are required to complete a self assessment tax return, while others receive unexpected tax bills from HM Revenue and Customs. Many pensioners do not have substantial incomes and have limited savings; it can therefore be both distressing and deeply worrying for those hard pressed pensioners to deal with tax demands. As the organisation Silver Voices has highlighted, taxing the state pension risks undermining the very principle of a retirement safety net, which was designed to ensure that people can afford life’s basic necessities in retirement.

Pensioners face many other challenges too, such as higher heating and fuel bills. We cannot forget that it was this Labour Government who so cruelly stripped away the winter fuel allowance two years ago as one of their first acts in government. In Scotland, the SNP Government did the same. Although the partial U turn last year was welcome, many pensioners spent a winter cold in their homes, and some pensioners still do not receive the support on which they had previously relied.

When the Conservatives came into office in 2010, the previous Labour Government had already subjected pensioners to a pension tax raid worth more than £100 billion, and had delivered a paltry 75p per week increase in the state pension. Improving the lives of pensioners had to be a priority, and that is why the triple lock was introduced. It was the right thing to do and, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, the Conservative party stands by it. The introduction of the triple lock saw the basic state pension increase by £3,700 between 2010 and 2024. At the last general election, my Conservative colleagues and I stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce a “triple lock plus”, guaranteeing that the state pension and the tax free personal allowance for pensioners would always rise by inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%, whichever was the highest.

A view has evolved among some people, particularly online, that pensioners are all wealthy and that they enjoy multiple holidays, drive expensive cars and own second homes that they rent out to younger generations. That may be true of a very small minority, but it is simply not the reality for the vast majority of pensioners, especially in my constituency in the Scottish Borders.

We should celebrate the fact that one of the landmark achievements of successive Governments over the past 30 years has been the reduction in pensioner poverty. There was a time not so long ago when 28% of pensioners lived in poverty. By 2024, that figure had fallen to just 12% for pensioner couples and 16% for pensioners overall. Poverty among pensioners is now lower than in any other age group in the United Kingdom. Many pensioners still struggle, however, and pensioner poverty is often the result of disadvantages that accumulate over a lifetime, long before retirement.

We can and must do much more to improve the lives of pensioners. These are changes that would benefit many other people in our country. Take stamp duty land tax, or land and buildings transaction tax in Scotland: many pensioners would like to downsize and move into a home that is better suited to their needs, particularly once their children have left home, but those taxes, which can amount to thousands of pounds, are one of the biggest barriers preventing them from moving on. We should therefore scrap stamp duty and LBTT entirely. Doing so would benefit the whole country, help pensioners to move into more suitable homes if they so wish and potentially free up capital and free up family homes for younger people seeking to get on the housing ladder.

Heating is one of the highest costs that pensioners face, and older people are often more exposed to rising energy costs. This Labour Government came to office promising to cut energy bills by £300, but household energy bills have risen by £294. We need to bring energy bills down, and we can do so by scrapping renewable energy subsidies, abolishing the carbon tax and cutting VAT on household energy bills. These measures would make a real difference to pensioners, helping them to keep more of the money they have worked hard for and saved throughout their life. They would deliver real, tangible benefits that would improve the lives of pensioners right now.

We should not and cannot forget the hard work and often the sacrifices that pensioners have made. They have worked hard and contributed to our society. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised by the petitioner Tim Mason, as well as the thousands of people who have signed the petition.

The purpose of this debate is not simply to consider one particular proposal, but to consider the broader concern expressed by many pensioners about the interaction between the rising state pension, the frozen tax thresholds and the financial pressures that many older people continue to face. The triple lock has undoubtedly made a significant difference to pensioners’ incomes. It remains one of the most important reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government: it has helped to improve financial security in retirement and has played an important role in reducing pensioner poverty.

Whether a separate personal allowance for pensioners is the right solution is a matter on which hon. Members may hold different views, but the petition demonstrates that these concerns are real and are shared by many people across the country. Pensioners have worked hard, paid their taxes, raised families, built communities and, in many cases, served or fought for our country. They deserve dignity, security and peace of mind in retirement. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the important issues raised by Tim Mason, and the many thousands of people who have supported his petition.

Will Members please bob if they wish to speak? Okay—not the most popular debate. It usually goes back and forth, but by process of elimination, I call Alison Griffiths.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling it today.

I represent the communities of Rustington and East Preston, often described as the state pension capital of Britain. For them and for thousands of others across my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency, this debate is not about Treasury spreadsheets or tax theory, but about their day to day finances and whether they feel the system is treating them fairly. They have worked hard and paid in throughout their life and are now looking at a situation in which the state pension continues to rise while tax thresholds remain frozen. They are asking a simple question: why are more and more pensioners being drawn into paying tax?

It is important to be clear about what sits behind that concern. The issue is not that pensioners have suddenly become wealthier; it is that frozen tax thresholds mean that the tax system reaches further into people’s incomes each year. That is why people feel so frustrated. They see their state pension increase on paper, only to find more of it being taken by the taxman. It affects more than pensioners—workers, families and businesses are feeling the effects of frozen thresholds, too, and across the country more people are paying more tax despite no change in the headline rates—but pensioners often feel it particularly acutely because many are living on fixed incomes and have less flexibility to absorb the additional costs.

The Government regularly tell people that they have not increased income tax rates. However, pensioners, who are a savvy bunch, can see exactly what is happening. They do not need a Treasury briefing to understand where more of their income is being taxed each year. The Chancellor chose to extend the freeze in the personal allowance until 2031. That was a political choice. It means that more pensioners will continue to be drawn into the tax system year after year. Ministers cannot make that decision and then act surprised when pensioners ask questions about fairness.

What concerns me most is the uncertainty. Last year’s Budget included an announcement that pensioners whose sole income is the state pension should not have to deal with small tax bills through the simple assessment process from 2027. Yet my constituents still do not know who will qualify, how the system will work, when the details will finally be published or how pensioners will be protected from unexpected tax demands. Those are reasonable questions, and people deserve answers.

There is also a broader principle at stake. At the previous general election, the Conservatives set out a different approach: we argued that the tax free allowance for pensioners should keep pace with the state pension, so that people could benefit from rises in the state pension without constantly worrying that frozen thresholds would erode those gains. Whether or not Members agree with that approach, at least it sought to address the underlying problem. The Government’s approach so far has been to extend the freeze, promise further details at some future point and ask pensioners to wait. My constituents deserve better. In Rustington, in East Preston and across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, pensioners want clarity, fairness and above all a Government who recognise the contribution that they have made throughout their working life.

I am not here to write the Budget from Westminster Hall, but I am here to say very clearly that pensioners in my constituency should not find themselves paying more and more tax simply because thresholds remain frozen year after year. I hope that the Minister will provide some answers today.

rose—

Order. It is at my discretion whether I allow you to speak, Sir John, as you were not here at the start of John Lamont’s speech. Theoretically, I could be mean and say no, but I will be nice.

I am extremely grateful for your indulgence and generosity, Dr Huq. I wish to speak because I have enjoyed correspondence with the Minister at the Treasury Bench on exactly this subject on behalf of constituents who have written to me. Not only has he replied to me to address the concerns of my constituents, but so have his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury—such is the volume of my correspondence that it is too much for him alone to handle. It reflects the widespread concern among my constituents about the freezing of thresholds and the effect on pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) has so admirably and ably highlighted.

At the heart of this matter is a fundamental principle, which is that we owe a particular and special debt to those who have given a lifetime’s work to this nation. That is why a previous Government introduced what is known as the triple lock. I need not rehearse the argument for it at length today, except to say that in my judgment it is entirely legitimate and justified. Once it has been promised, it cannot be taken away—that is the political reality—but it has pushed more and more pensioners into taxation as thresholds have been frozen.

Each year, more pensioners pay tax who should never have paid tax at all. That is not an entirely new phenomenon: I remember my father, who had a small works pension, paying tax in his 80s. He has been dead for more than 20 years, but he said to me then, “I am 85 and still paying tax. Is that really appropriate?” My answer then, like my answer now, was no. It is not appropriate for people on relatively modest incomes to be drawn into tax because of the freezing of thresholds.

I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, but—with your further indulgence, Dr Huq—I want to make two other points. I want to make a case, as I have before in this very Chamber, for the WASPI women. Those women were caught out by a change in the provision of pensions due to an alteration in the age at which women retired. They have suffered an injustice; that is not just my consideration or judgment, but that of the ombudsman, who accused the Government of maladministration. Those women, too, deserve a hearing.

Before you call me to order, Dr Huq, and tell me that I am digressing from the subject at hand—

You have read my mind.

My final point is that the Government have options to take and choices to make. Of course, pensions are funded from the welfare budget. There are those, perhaps including some Members on the Conservative Benches, who say that the triple lock is no longer sustainable. The Minister himself might have flirted with that idea in an earlier life when he was a thinker, not a doer—[Interruption.] No, he ran a think tank. Now he is a man who does things; then, he was a man who only thought about doing things.

I take the view that the welfare budget is burgeoning because a large number of people of working age are claiming benefits, not because they are unable to work because they are profoundly disabled, infirm or otherwise incapacitated—for those people, I stand firm and do so proudly —but because they choose not to work and to let others work and pay tax, including those pensioners drawn into taxation by the freezing of thresholds. Pensioners have every right to ask why they should struggle, as many do; we know of pensioner poverty. I have the figures here: 2.2 million pensioners are in relative low income before housing costs, and 1.3 million are in relative low income after housing costs. We know that pensioners are struggling, and they will say, “Why should we do so when others, who could work, choose not to? Why have the Government failed to recognise that?”

Notwithstanding his change of status, I suspect the Minister still thinks seriously about these things from time to time, when he is not busy doing the other duties that are a necessary part of governing, including replying to my correspondence. I am sure he must have considered this issue in the broad minded way for which I know he is famed. For heaven’s sake, let us raise thresholds. Let us protect pensioners. Let us cut welfare, but cut it wisely and reduce the benefits of those who choose not to help themselves. Welfare is a safety net, is it not? It should always be for those who cannot do without it.

With those few thoughts, I leave the matter to the wisdom of the Minister and to the remainder of the Chamber —but I stand firmly and squarely behind the very appropriate advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for the pensioners in her constituency, and I stand with the pensioners in mine.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The Liberal Democrats have said clearly that we think it is both wrong and unfair that the Government have implemented a stealth tax grab that will hit some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable the hardest, by maintaining a freeze on income tax thresholds that hits ordinary families, people on low incomes and the group we are discussing today: pensioners. An estimated 600,000 people were dragged into paying income tax for the first time this April, while a further 580,000 were pulled into the higher 40p rate.

Raising tax thresholds is the best and fairest way to cut taxes. Liberal Democrats would advocate that as a way to reduce income tax for everyone at every stage of life, taking the lowest paid, including state pensioners, out of income tax altogether when public finances allow. When we were in government, we raised the personal allowance, taking millions of people out of income tax, putting money back into people’s pockets and helping ensure that work and hard earned state pensions would pay.

By contrast, the Conservatives and Labour have frozen it again and again. That has left us in a position in which the state pension is nearly equal to the threshold. The full rate of the new state pension for 2026-27 is £240.30 a week, or £12,547.60 a year, while the standard personal allowance is £12,570 a year. It is an absolutely tiny gap.

The Chancellor has said that state pensioners will be exempt from paying income tax. We support that exemption, which is all well and good, but we need the Government to publish more information on how they are going to guarantee it if they continue their policy of freezing the tax threshold. With less than a year to go, people will understandably be worried. They urgently need clarity about which specific process they will have to follow and a cast iron reassurance that they will not fall through the cracks.

Ultimately, stealth tax rises are not only dishonest with voters, but a completely inadequate and ineffective way for the Government to paper over the cracks in their economic plan. There is no better way to get the economy growing than to make everybody feel better off; the best way to balance the books is to grow our economy, and the quickest way to do that is to repair the damage of the terrible Brexit deal by negotiating a new UK EU customs deal. A better trade deal would be a huge boost to our public finances, and the best and fairest way to end the crisis in the NHS, boost our defence capabilities and look to reduce the unfair tax burden that people have shouldered for the last few years.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that everyone deserves a chance to enjoy a decent retirement where they can live comfortably, whether in my Witney constituency or anywhere else in the country. We strongly opposed the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payments. We welcomed the Chancellor’s U turn in that case, restoring payments to pensioners with incomes of £35,000 or less, but we continue to call on the Government to backdate payments to those who lost out and to confirm that the £35,000 threshold will be uprated with inflation each year.

We were proud when in government to introduce the triple lock. It was desperately needed after years of the real value of the state pension falling, as was set out very well by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). We will always fight to guarantee that pensions keep pace with the cost of living. We want to develop measures to end the gender pension gap in private pensions and ensure that working age carers can save properly for retirement. We would also like to see improvement to the state pension system by investing in helplines to ensure quicker resolution of underpayments, and an end to the scandal of lost top up payments through an overhaul of the processing system and provision of proper receipts.

In summary, I urge the Government once again to reconsider the freeze on tax thresholds, which has dragged millions of people into paying more tax at a time when cost of living pressures are hitting people at all stages of life really hard. Raising the thresholds would ensure that pensioners, as well as working age households, got a fairer deal. The Government should stop using stealth tax grabs to paper over the bigger issues in the economy and boost trade to get the economy moving, making everyone feel better off. Finally, I ask the Minister to spell out how he will ensure that people on the state pension are not dragged into paying income tax on it, so that we can give peace of mind to older people on low incomes.

Thank you, Dr Huq, for your stewardship of this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate. Most importantly, I thank the 119,000 people who signed this petition, 247 of whom are from my constituency of Wyre Forest. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for also raising this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for bringing up the WASPI women, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who needs hearty congratulations on getting Brexit into this debate—well done to him.

This is a timely debate, and I agree with the wider point at the heart of the proposal that the petition seeks to address. We are all facing a higher tax burden thanks to this Government’s choices and policies, and we are all really struggling with cost of living rises—again, thanks to this Government’s tax choices on employment. Pensioners, instead of living with the dignity in retirement that they have worked so hard for and deserve, have a greater financial burden placed on them. Now we have the prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer floating more tax rises in the next Budget. That is deeply concerning for all of us, but especially for those on low incomes. I hope that this Minister, who played a key role in the last Budget, will be able to rule out tax rises in the next Budget at the Dispatch Box here today.

The thrust behind the petition is very clear, but first we must understand the historical context of how the pension system works. That context goes back over a century to 1921, when the Government of the time struck a deal with future pensioners. The basis of that deal was that people could save money into a fund from untaxed earnings; the Treasury would contribute to that fund the tax that would otherwise have been paid. Then the fund would be allowed to grow without being subject to any tax during its lifetime. At the time of retirement, the fund would be used to provide an income for the pensioner but, importantly, that income would be treated as taxable income. It would be replacing the earnings that that individual would have been generating, had they still been in work. In 1946, when the state pension was introduced, that pension payout was to be subject to tax in exactly the same way that private pensions were back in 1921.

That system has remained unchanged ever since. The simple contract between the state and the pensioner has not changed at all since 1921. It is important to underline this point. Successive Governments maintain that a pension, whether state or occupational, is a form of income. Specifically, it is treated as a replacement for earnings. However, there have been breaks for pensioners, most notably the exemption from paying national insurance contributions. Today, a pensioner will be asked to pay income tax above the tax free threshold, but they will not be asked to pay national insurance, as the working population do.

Where we can absolutely agree with the wider sentiment of the petition is that this Government are confusing the pension landscape. In their first 20 months, the Labour Government have not been the pensioner’s best friend. Prior to the last Budget, the Chancellor flew a few kites about reducing the tax free lump sum. That resulted in pensioners withdrawing £3.9 billion in one off lump sums from their pensions between October 2024 and October 2025. That was an increase of nearly 30% on the year before. When the Budget was actually announced, the Chancellor raided unused pensions in her inheritance tax calculations—a policy that will bring more families into paying inheritance tax and will mean that fewer people can pass money on to their loved ones when they die.

However, this petition talks specifically about the personal allowance. The last Government made a decision to help those in the bottom decile of earnings by increasing the tax free threshold at an accelerated rate. That helped pensioners as well as lower earning people, and over time it brought the state pension to a level below that of the tax free threshold. That has two benefits: first, there is no tax for state pensioners, and secondly there is no tax return to be filled in by state pensioners. But now this Government are choosing to freeze income tax thresholds until 2031, and the Government have extended the freeze because of their economic mismanagement.

The Chancellor, in her first Budget, stated: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] As I say, that was her first Budget. After promising to not extend the freeze—something we would have supported —she went back on her word and chose not to protect hard working people. That matters to pensioners, because the state pension will soon rise above the income tax threshold due to the triple lock, which we all agree is a good thing to remedy the ills that happened when the state pension fell to, I think, about 13% or 14% of average earnings. That means that pensioners will now have to start paying income tax on—[Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister.

Order. You are chuntering from a sedentary position, Minister.

I will chunter from a standing position shortly.

Your time is near.

I am sure that the Minister will chunter intelligently at some point.

In our 2024 manifesto, the Conservative party proposed the triple lock plus to stop this problem happening. It would have exempted the state pension from income tax, as the threshold would have risen at the same rate as the triple lock. Now it seems that this Government might be considering using our policy, albeit in a slightly cack handed way.

The Government have proposed that basic rate state pensioners will not have to fill in a tax return, although this seems to be a specific sort of form filling break for the over-67s rather than an actual hiking of the allowance. However, in a Treasury Committee hearing recently, a director at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Cerys McDonald, stated that the policy would be included in the next Finance Bill. She said: “We will be working with the Treasury and Ministers to bring forward legislation to support the policy intent in the next Finance Bill.”

Of course, we welcome the Government effectively taking our policy and exempting those who are on a state pension, but we do not have any detail as to how this plan will work. Pensioners deserve clarity. Perhaps the Minister could confirm today that the proposals to which Cerys McDonald referred will be introduced.

It is not just policy that is blighting pensioners. The Sunday Times has highlighted that up to 8.7 million pensioners have been overcharged on their tax bill by an apparently careless taxman. That means that as much as £43.5 million was collected in error last year. I am pleased that HMRC is putting that right and that the fix should be finalised in the summer, but it has been working on this for a year. It is taking far too long. Will the Minister set out what he will do to resolve the situation and confirm to the House when it is fixed?

This petition is well intentioned and it is correct that we are all facing a higher tax burden than ever before. As has been reported, many pensioners are being overcharged on their tax bill. The Government need to get a hold of this situation and do more to reduce the tax burden on pensioners, because, as we have heard from many Members today, they deserve dignity and security in their retirement, but they have been left wanting by this Government.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is willing to raise the tax free threshold, as identified in this petition, from £12,500 or thereabouts to £25,140, and will then maintain it at 200% of the working person’s tax free threshold. Will he agree with the petition, or will he rule out that proposal today?

Finally, I have been shadowing the Minister for about 18 months now. He is a very decent gentleman and I enjoy shadowing him. I wish him the very best of luck in the upcoming reshuffle after the by election on Thursday.

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening it and for rightly highlighting and celebrating the fall in pensioner poverty, while noting that that is no grounds for complacency about what happens in the years to come.

I also thank the select but high quality group of hon. Members who have chosen to speak and to share their insights, and the honourable members of the public who contributed their own voices to the debate by signing the petition. As we have heard, over 100,000 have done so. I suspect that many more people would have at least shared the sentiment behind the petition of wanting to support our pensioners in retirement. This Government certainly do. The real question is how that is best done. Do we have clear enough priorities that can be delivered on, and delivered on at times when there are many other competing pressures?

Our priorities as a Government, when it comes to supporting pensioners, are twofold: raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS. The foundation of the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is, of course, the state pension, which we have heard a lot about today.

I recently met a constituent on the basic state pension who told me that rising living costs were leaving him worse off in real terms. What consideration have the Government given to reviewing pension thresholds? In particular, is a phased increase over several years being explored?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Our approach is to increase the basic pension and the new state pension in the years ahead, because pensioners, as well as the population as a whole, have seen living standards pressures in recent years. As her constituent’s case shows, the foundation of not all but the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is the state pension. The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 over this Parliament, reflecting our manifesto commitment to uprate via the triple lock throughout this Parliament.

I enjoyed the discussion of the triple lock and the praising of the raising of the level of the state pension from the lows we saw before. It is interesting that—one, two, three, four—four Conservative Members neglected to mention that the pension had to be rescued because of policies put in place by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Decoupling pensions and leaving the uprating significantly behind the level of earnings in the population is why we saw pensioner poverty rates rise to 30% over the course of the 1990s. Everyone has limited time and there is only so much we can choose to—

Will the Minister give way?

Of course. I look forward to the denunciation of the hon. Gentleman’s previous Prime Minister.

It is interesting that the Minister raises that point. He will no doubt remember that Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the state pension by, I think, 50p a week. Did he support that policy by one of his predecessor Chancellors?

He was not my predecessor, because I am the Pensions Minister and Gordon Brown was never a Pensions Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman know who was? Margaret Thatcher. Gordon Brown oversaw big falls in pensioner poverty. Why? Because he introduced pension credit in the early 2000s. That then drove the huge falls in pensioner poverty that we saw in the 2000s, supported by increases in private pension savings that came through during those years. So, yes, I do endorse the record of that previous Chancellor, even though he is not a predecessor of mine.

Hon. Members will know that the basic and the new state pensions increased by 4.8% in April; I think it is a matter of cross party consensus that that is a good thing. It will boost pensioner incomes by up to £575 a year. We are also protecting the poorest pensioners with a 4.8% increase in the pension credit minimum guarantee.

I am delighted to hear about the increase in pensions. The Minister can tell us what they increased by, but can he perhaps tell us what they were reduced by with the taxation that they were then dragged into?

Order. I am not sure that this is entirely appropriate—

It is for the Chair to decide what is appropriate, but I will come on to the question of fair rates of tax. We should be clear and transparent in how we talk about this issue: any increase in the rate of the state pension is always significantly greater than any increase in tax that follows from that increase due to our not having tax rates of over 100%. It is important that we are heard to say that to people. I will come on to the rates of tax in a second. It is obviously an important part of this debate, given the nature of the petition.

The single biggest betrayal of older generations today is not anything to do with pensions. It is the state of the NHS that we inherited: an NHS that our pensioners in particular rely on and that in 2024 was letting far too many of them down. Here is one fact that it is hard to get over: over one in five of those aged over 75 were on English NHS waiting lists, which soared to over 7 million. One in five people over 75 were left on an NHS waiting list. That is what letting down pensioners looks like, and our priority is to turn that around. The number of those waiting has fallen by over 400,000 since we took office. That progress reflects reform, but it also reflects resources, with £26 billion additional investment supporting 5 million appointments.

The need to turn around the NHS is something that I think we all agree on. It is slightly telling that there was no mention of the NHS in the previous contributions. As I am also a Treasury Minister, it is my job to remind all hon. Members that we can will the ends, but not the means. As always, that applies particularly to the Liberal Democrats, who gave up connecting the two several years ago. Delivering the funding to raise the state pension and rescue the NHS involves choices.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked about one area in the welfare space and about choices there. I gently say to him, having seen the work of the Department under the previous Government, that there was no plan then. Under the current Opposition, there still is no plan to change the welfare system, but they also claim that changes to the welfare system would fund their proposals on defence and on tax. It is implausible that they would make any difference in this area.

The hon. Member has undersold me: I am right honourable, as he ought to know, really. Leaving that to one side, he will know that £253 billion is spent on non pensioner welfare benefits. Many of those are entirely laudable—as I described when I spoke, the chronically sick, the infirm and profoundly disabled people deserve benefits, and I want those to be bigger and better—but many are not. The Government have ducked that responsibility. Whether previous Governments did, too, is not the point: this Government are in power, power brings responsibility and the Minister has the responsibility to tackle welfare.

I apologise to the right hon. Member for underselling him, but I think that he is also underselling the work that this Government are doing. Changes to the flawed welfare system that we inherited are already taking place. In April, we reduced the financial incentive put in place by a previous Conservative Prime Minister that provided people with a strong incentive to label themselves as too sick to work and therefore did not provide them with any employment support whatsoever. We are bringing forward other measures month by month. Members will see progress in the next few months, in terms of offering people support if they hire young, unemployed people. Changes are happening right now.

I have discussed the choices on the welfare side. Given the nature of the petition, I want to come on to how those choices include tax, because those who made the effort to sign the petition deserve to know where we stand. Not a single Member set out their views on the petition’s proposal clearly, but we owe some honesty about that for the quality of the debate. The reality is that no political party will deliver a doubling of the personal allowance for pensioners. If any Member disagrees with that, now is the moment for them to stand up and set out their support for the petition, but I suspect all Opposition Members will agree. Why is that? It would come at a very substantial fiscal cost of several billion pounds each year. That is inconsistent with the priorities I have set out, including on the state pension and the NHS, which I think most hon. Members share.

Too often, debates on this topic do pensioners an injustice by pretending that most of them are not already paying income tax. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said a little about that, but the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) explained the situation exactly: the system, as it was set up, has always been that state and private pensions are taxable. The vast majority of pensioners are already paying income tax; over 80% of pensioners were doing so by the end of the previous Conservative Government.

The question is whether we can keep the contribution that is asked of pensioners—and workers, for that matter—down by making other changes to our tax system. That is what the last Budget focused on: making the system fairer by asking those who can afford to contribute more to do so, not least by taxes on those with the most valuable properties. As he has done in many of our interactions, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest opposed some of the changes that we set out on inheritance tax, salary sacrifice and the rest, but that would mean less money for the NHS or higher tax rates on pensioners, workers and others—there are consequences to our choices.

It is true that we have extended the personal allowance freeze that was put in place by the previous Government. That reflects the need to protect the state pension, rescue our NHS and make sure that public finances are put on a sustainable footing. I am not hiding from the consequences of that policy decision, but the UK has one of the most generous personal tax allowances in the OECD and the G7. It is important to note that our income tax system is progressive; it is not about just who comes into tax but how much tax people pay. Those who have more contribute more, which is exactly as it should be. The impact of the freeze is that higher rate taxpayers, on average, will contribute roughly three times as much as a basic rate taxpayer; the majority of pensioners who pay tax do so at the basic rate or not at all.

Although I have been honest that doubling the personal allowance for any particular group is not a remotely realistic prospect, our tax system recognises pensioners. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned the 2010 Government’s record on the triple lock, but he slightly missed the abolition of the age related personal allowance, a very generous version of which the petition calls to have brought back. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) praised the coalition Government but somehow also forgot to mention the abolition of the age related personal allowance. Our tax system recognises pensioners in other ways, not just by that position, which was abolished under the coalition Government.

As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, those over the state pension age pay no national insurance. Older generations also tend to benefit most from the multiple tax allowances, not least the £1,000 savings allowance for basic rate taxpayers. The personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic state pension and the full new state pension this year, but, as several hon. Members have set out, the Chancellor has also promised that we will ease the administrative burden for pensioners so that they do not have to pay small amounts of tax via simple assessment from 2027-28. I have heard hon. Members’ requests for more detail on that in the near future, and the direct answer to the question from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is that those changes will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill.

I recognise the substantial support for the petition, which is as it should be. Pensioners who have worked hard all their lives deserve a decent retirement. The best way to deliver that is for this Government to continue their work to rescue the NHS and increase the state pension throughout the course of this Parliament, and, as we look to future generations of pensioners, to put in place a stronger private pensions system. That is what the Pensions Commission is looking at right now, which I think has cross party support, because we want to know that tomorrow’s generations of pensioners will also look forward to the retirement we all want to see them enjoy.

I did not anticipate having 45 minutes to speak, but I will do my best to fill the time. I thank Mr Mason for starting this petition and the 120,000 people who signed it. I also thank the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate; there was perhaps more quality than quantity on this occasion, but it was a very good debate and a lot of useful points were made.

It is remarkable how often Mrs Thatcher and Brexit can still creep into some of these debates, but legitimate concerns were raised by the petitioner and those who signed the petition about how the tax system interacts with the state pension in particular. The Minister was very clear about the choices the Government have made, and I think that we all accept that the highest paid pensioners should be paying tax, but the main thrust of this petition is about those at the bottom end of the income stream who are now creeping into the tax system, which I do not think any of us intended. Pensioners deserve protection and clarity, and they need to know the Government’s intentions for how they will be protected and looked after in their retirement.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e petition 740671 relating to personal allowance for state pensioners.

Sitting suspended.

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Petitions Committee of Session 2015–16, Funding for research into brain tumours, HC 554, and the Government response, Session 2016-17, HC 292; and Oral evidence taken before the Petitions Committee on 27 May 2021, on Brain tumour and childhood cancer research, Session 2021-22, HC 242.]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 738881 relating to brain cancer research and treatment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank Sarah Bainbridge and the rest of Brain Cancer Justice for creating the petition that has led to this debate. Although it was established only last year, it has already built a remarkable campaign and secured support from more than 109,000 people for the petition—well done and thanks very much. The petition calls for increased funding to accelerate discoveries and clinical trials, improved access to whole genome sequencing with personalised treatment and the protection of the right of patients to try innovative treatment options.

It is not the first time that Parliament has debated this issue. Just over a decade ago, a petition calling for greater funding for brain tumour research received more than 120,000 signatures, which led to a Petitions Committee inquiry report.

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has brought this debate to us. The petition to which he refers was in memory of the son of my constituent; his name was Stephen Realf, and sadly he died in 2014. The petition calls for increased funding to reach parity with the funding for leukaemia and breast cancer. Stephen’s father Peter is in the Chamber today. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the importance of the work done by Stephen Realf’s sister Maria back then in raising the profile of this vital issue?

I absolutely agree. I have spoken to Peter, and it was remarkable what they did then. The inquiry—there have not been many petition inquiries—was a result of the work they did, and it has certainly made sure that the subject has not gone away. That petition recognised that brain tumour patients have been failed “at every stage” of the research and funding process. As a result of that and the inquiry, some progress followed: a task and finish working group was established, and in 2018 the Government pledged £40 million for brain tumour research. However, by 2024 only £15 million of it had been delivered. Many further petitions have been brought forward by campaigners, but meaningful progress continues to stall.

I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way in which he is opening today’s debate. It has been really heartbreaking to hear from my constituent Hayley about the battles that her granddaughter Lily has had to go through to try to find effective treatments for her brain tumour. The Brain Tumour Charity has highlighted that fewer than 40% of patients with brain tumours are informed about clinical trials. Does my hon. Friend agree with its recommendation that the Government need to reflect on how every eligible patient can be informed about, and ideally have access to, clinical trials to ensure that the widest possible range of treatment options is available?

Absolutely. That is a key element of the work that needs to be done to help patients with this issue. I will refer to that later, but it is fundamental. We know that, without that research, nothing will improve and we will continue to see the terrible conditions and quality of life that people have to face.

On the brain tumour research consortium, I understand that none of the moneys to which the hon. Gentleman refers have made it to Northern Ireland’s research facilities. Does he share my concern about the need to ensure that the money reaches the whole United Kingdom to benefit our collective research, including at Queen’s University Belfast, and find a cure for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

I was not aware of that, but clearly it is unacceptable and makes no sense whatever. We really need to use our experience right across this nation. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

It is a fact that in the UK brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40. Approximately 13,000 people are diagnosed each year. For those who are diagnosed with a high grade brain tumour, the five year survival rate remains just 12.9%.

My constituent Emma has long been committed to achieving justice for people with brain cancer and has been writing to me about it ever since I became an MP. She has highlighted the survival rate of 12.9%. As we have already heard, research funding in this area is very low, at just 1% to 2% of overall cancer research funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to increase the research funding to improve that five year survival rate?

Absolutely. I use the word again: it is fundamental. Without it, there is no real way forward. We will continue to repeat the same treatments that we have seen for many years. Those treatments are not fully effective, as we know, so we need research to develop new and innovative approaches.

I have referred to some statistics, but we have to remember that behind every statistic is a family. Each family are pursuing every available treatment, and all too often they are turning to crowdfunding to travel overseas in search of a cure, because significant barriers continue to block progress here at home.

Workforce shortages also limit access to care. Only 40% of patients have a clinical nurse specialist, and there is a 30% shortfall in consultant radiologists. Early career researchers lack funding and support, which pushes talent away from this field. That is especially damaging because scientists from diverse disciplines are essential for the development of new treatments.

System failures also prevent the limited available funding from reaching patients in a meaningful way. Whole genome sequencing is not routinely available at diagnosis, and access to a clinical trial remains severely restricted.

The Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency has a cancer centre, both for trials and for treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key asks that we all have of Government is to improve the international join up so that the people doing this research can tap into the expertise of the clinicians treating patients in other countries, who in turn can learn from the expertise in the UK? Too often, because these tumours are very rare, identifying effective treatments and effective numbers for trials can be difficult for one single hospital or clinical institution.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. This work cannot be done by just one centre, either in this country or elsewhere in Europe or the world. It certainly makes sense to connect expertise more, both within our nation and with our partners, particularly in Europe but also across the US.

As of May this year, only 15 active trials were available to brain tumour patients, compared with 54 for pancreatic cancer, which is another disease of unmet need.

A constituent of mine, Daniel, passed away while he was part of the BRAIN MATRIX study. Daniel’s tumour progressed from stage 2 to stage 4 before the pathway could properly inform his care. Does my hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done, not only to improve primary care recognition and referral pathways for brain tumours, but to maximise access to clinical trials?

Yes, I do. At the front end, we need to improve diagnosis. I have personal knowledge of that through my youngest daughter. Unfortunately, it took some time for one of her friends to be diagnosed with this awful disease, and he is now at a similar stage, where it is extremely difficult for him to receive the treatment he needs. Diagnosis is extremely important.

Clinicians continue to raise concerns about the collection, storage and use of tumour tissue, despite the fact that it is vital to supporting research and innovation. Unfortunately, NHS trusts differ markedly in capacity and resources, creating a postcode lottery for diagnosis and advanced treatments. As we know, brain tumours are complex; there are more than 100 distinct types, nearly 40% of patients in England are diagnosed in emergency care, and the blood brain barrier limits the effectiveness of medicines.

Such challenges have led many to dismiss tackling brain cancer as “too difficult”. That is clearly still an obstacle. We have to break the view that brain cancer falls into that box. In my meetings with campaigners, patients and families, their frustration with that notion is unmistakable. They know, as we do, that with the right support these barriers can be overcome.

The Government have recently announced welcome initiatives, including those in the Rare Cancers Act 2026, the national cancer plan and the brain tumour research consortium, supported by the £13.7 million to unite 48 hospitals, universities, cancer centres and charities in partnership with patients. However, that must be seen as just the first step. Much of this activity simply disburses the remainder of the existing funding pledged, and brain tumours still receive just 3.2% of national cancer research funding.

I have been contacted by constituents on behalf of young adults and children who are fighting for access to treatment. I am afraid that this all became far too real for me this time last year, when a dear friend of mine was diagnosed with glioblastoma; they are now in palliative care, probably with only a short time to live. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to boost Government funding into research? As he said, too many companies think that this is just too hard to do, so we need a Government initiative, in partnership with the amazing life sciences innovators in our universities up and down the country, as well as those in industry, to really crack this problem so that families do not face this devastation year after year.

The simple answer is yes, I totally agree. The hon. Lady has summed it up perfectly.

In 2023-24, charities provided 74% of all investment, which of course left just 26% coming from Government. There is a clear link between funding and survival. Investment enables more clinical trials, better patient recruitment and improved access to innovation. I therefore call on the Government to set out how much funding will be ringfenced, and to raise their contribution to between £45 million and £50 million by 2029 in line with the recommendations from Brain Tumour Research.

At the same time, we must recognise that funding alone will not deliver the progress we urgently need. The wider research and innovation environment must be reformed so that discoveries progress more efficiently into clinical development and patient access. Discovery research is essential, yet many innovations still fail to cross the translational valley of death, where fragmented, high risk and unsupported pathways cause breakthroughs to stall.

Stronger collaboration between institutions is needed to accelerate early stage research, and the Government should also clarify the role of UK Research and Innovation within the national cancer plan, given its central contribution to discovery science. In addition, health technology assessment reform is required so that appraisal bodies adopt fairer and more flexible cost effectiveness thresholds for rare and less survivable cancers, including brain tumours.

Patient awareness is essential. As Professor Kathreena Kurian highlighted, many patients are left unaware that they must give consent for their tumour tissue to be used in advanced diagnostics and research. Every eligible patient must have proactive conversations with their clinical team about research opportunities. Greater participation is essential to attract investment, and when trials are easier to set up and recruit for, commercial and academic partners are more likely to set up further studies in the UK.

Alongside that, we must address an issue repeatedly raised by patients and families: the right to pursue innovative treatment when standard options have been exhausted. Too many families find themselves travelling abroad, seeking repurposed drugs or raising money online to access treatments. No family should be forced to remortgage their home, empty savings or appeal to strangers online simply to pursue the possibility of more time. These improvements depend on one further requirement: strong national leadership. Currently, no single body within the Government, NHS England or the wider health system holds clear ownership of brain cancer outcomes. Where responsibility is spread everywhere, accountability exists nowhere. Patients deserve to know who is responsible for delivering change.

Before I close, I will return to the reason the petition exists. In October 2022, Sarah Bainbridge’s daughter Jess was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer that, until then, her family had never heard of. Jess underwent treatment, including two operations, but her family soon realised that once the standard options were exhausted, very few alternatives remained. Like many other families, they found themselves searching beyond established pathways. Jess died in November 2023. She was just 35 years old, and had three children: Alfred, who was five, and one year old twins Billy and Alba. In Sarah’s words: “If I am honest, we have needed Jess every single day since she died, and we still do.”

This is not just Jess’s story; it is the story of thousands of families across the UK. Following Jess’s death, Sarah met Georgie Maynard, a young mother living with glioblastoma. Although their circumstances were different, they shared the same frustration: that patients and families were still facing many of the same barriers identified decades earlier. Together, they founded Brain Cancer Justice, not for sympathy or recognition, but to call for urgent change. It was my privilege to meet with Brain Cancer Justice in the lead up to this debate, and I encourage Ministers to do the same.

This should not only be about recognition or reassurance but about ending broken promises, raising ambition and protecting delivery. Patients and families have waited long enough: we must turn “terminal” into “treatable”.

Order. I am sorry to all hon. and right hon. Members, because I will have to impose a two minute time limit straightaway, and it is clear that we will not get everyone in.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee with his extremely well thought through and detailed opening remarks. I pay tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned, and to the advocacy groups that work tirelessly, to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients. As the petitioners request, investment in research is key. I join them—some are my constituents—in calling on the Government to increase research funding and to go further in legally enshrining the right to try genome sequencing, trials, immunotherapy, and repurposed drugs and vaccines.

I will use my time to highlight some of the progress that has been made in treatment options, because there is some hope. Trials in the USA have shown very promising results for sonodynamic therapy as a treatment for children with the brain cancer known as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG is an inoperable brain tumour primarily affecting children, and it is deemed terminal on diagnosis. The only form of treatment offered is radiotherapy, which may prolong life for a few months at best. On average, the survival rate is less than 10 months.

Sonodynamic therapy uses focused ultrasound to produce a light that interacts with an administered prodrug. It is being worked on now in the USA and progress is being made. I am delighted to say that St Mary’s hospital in London is following suit with some promising results. I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister what the Government’s plans are for rolling out this type of therapy across the UK, and in particular for rolling it out to trials of vulnerable children who are willing to get involved.

I conclude by paying tribute once again to those of my constituents who signed the petition and want to see the Government do their bit.

I thank the hon. Member for setting a fine example of keeping to the time limit.

I thank the Petitions Committee and my friends from Brain Cancer Justice, who I affectionately think of as the provisional wing of the all party parliamentary group on brain tumours.

In July last year, we launched Margaret’s trial at University College London hospital. Thanks to the donations of thousands of supporters and the work of brilliant researchers and clinicians under Dr Paul Mulholland at UCLH, we are testing whether immunotherapy before surgery can help newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. It is exactly the kind of innovation that we need more of. I was not prepared to wait for the institutions that we look to for progress. We decided to do it ourselves, and that is precisely what we are doing.

We have five people on the trial and space for 11 more. I urge anyone who hears of anybody diagnosed with glioblastoma to consider our trial. It is for newly diagnosed patients pre treatment. It is free. It is available. There will be excellent care. The trial will not only hopefully extend the lives of those who decide to go on it, but give us the information to find out how we can use repurposed drugs to treat this truly terrible cancer as early as possible.

My brother in law Pip Harding, who is with us in the Public Gallery today, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma in March 2024 and given nine months to live. He is still here today, thank God—looking amazing—because he received treatment that cost a huge amount of money, which was crowdfunded. That highlights a very uncomfortable truth in our society: the treatment is there and available, but only for those who can crowdfund or afford it.

I will not go through the challenges, because I know the Minister is well aware of them, but I will talk about the needs. We need clear national accountability for improving brain tumour outcomes. We need sustained and protected investment in brain tumour research so that the funding finally reflects the devastating impact of this disease. We need brain cancer care to be recognised as genuinely time critical, because while tumours can progress in weeks, the system responds in years. We need a truly national brain cancer clinical trials pipeline, and we need the routine collection and storage of fresh frozen tumour tissue for all brain cancer patients.

For families facing diagnosis today, the cost of delay is measured not in statistics, but in lives. The science is advancing. The clinicians are ready. Patients and families are demanding action. The challenge for all of us now is to ensure that the pace of policy finally matches the pace of the disease.

Will the Minister set out how the Government will deliver on these priorities: clear accountability, greater research investment, improved access to clinical trials, routine access to genomic testing and tissue preservation, and better outcomes for brain tumour patients by the end of this Parliament? How will Parliament be able to hold the Government accountable for delivering them? If the system cannot match the pace of brain cancer, it will continue to fail and “terminal” will remain the outcome. We must move from “terminal” to “treatable”, so other families can have the second chance that we have now had with our Pip.

First, I thank all those families in my constituency who have been raising funds for years for the Brain Tumour Charity. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who has pioneered our debates on this issue over recent years so effectively, and I thank my friend Sonya Kean, who has consistently brought me up to speed on all the recent developments.

I just want to ask one question, which comes out of the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies). Let me just run through again the stats from the Brain Cancer Justice provisionals, as they have been described: there is a 30% shortfall in consultant radiologists, which he referred to; only 40% of patients report having access to a clinical nurse specialist; there are only 40 consultant neuro oncologists nationwide, so there are huge regional gaps; many trusts lack dedicated trial nurses and clinical nurse specialist support; 60% of pathologists report inadequate staffing and resources; and there is no mandatory neuro oncology training or protected research time.

I have just one question, because it is important to give the Minister time to respond to the debate. I just want to know what immediate action will be taken—now—to address the workforce shortages and how we can develop, in a very limited time, a workforce strategy that addresses some of the issues identified in this briefing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I was reflecting with my constituents Greg and Sally, whose son has a brain tumour, when I met them in my constituency office this morning—they also attended the all party parliamentary group meeting a few weeks ago—on what has actually changed since I last spoke in a Backbench Business debate on brain tumours in 2023, and the sorry answer on funding is not a lot, and certainly not enough. In the few moments I have in the debate this afternoon, I want to cut to the chase and ask the Minister some direct questions about how we get that money spent and how we get real results to find cures and ways to prolong lives.

To start on that, we must have a clear breakdown of the total spend on brain cancers by year over the last decade and how that breaks down by actual treatments; research into treatments, including into how much has been spent on trials; research into other areas with a bearing on brain cancer outcomes; research into how each of those involves artificial intelligence; and infrastructure. Specifically, I would very much like the Minister to address the issue of how the Government are planning to make the radical change in approach to brain tumour detection and treatment that is necessary for the UK to achieve its ambition to move from the fourth to the first quartile for survival in nine years. That is a worthy ambition, but we need to see the detail and the concrete steps that will be taken. It will involve answering big questions about artificial intelligence and other innovations.

What I will say in my last few seconds is, given that brain cancer is the biggest killer of under-40s, we need to challenge the idea that it is really a rare cancer and ask whether the definition of “rare” is fit for purpose in the modern age.

I will use my time today to share the words of Jackie Hall, mum of 14-year old Max Hall. She says: “Dear Members of Parliament, Max should be worrying about school, football, friends, and what he wants to be when he grows up. Instead, our family is living with the reality that he has a high grade brain tumour and that there is no cure available to him.

We have discovered that many of the treatments currently offered to children with aggressive brain tumours have changed very little over decades.

What makes this even harder is knowing that before Max’s diagnosis, he suffered headaches for around a year.

Max is funny. He is kind. He is intelligent. He is brave beyond words.

He is a child who deserves the same urgency, investment, innovation, and hope that would be demanded for any child standing in front of you today.

Children with aggressive brain tumours cannot wait years for discussions, consultations, reports, and strategies.

We need meaningful investment in brain tumour research.

We need greater access to clinical trials.

We need better awareness and earlier diagnosis.

If this were your child, would you be satisfied with the options available?

Please do not let another generation of children face the same future.

Yours sincerely, Jackie Hall Mum to Max”.

I will not stop until I get Jackie answers and get policies changed for young people like Max. Mandatory MRIs for long term sufferers of headaches would be a good start, but after 12 years of warm words and broken promises, the motto of my constituency is deeds, not words. In the name of Max, Jackie and their family, and for the sake of all the people who are suffering, now is the time for this Government to be the one who finally deliver.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for speaking on behalf of the petitioners, and I thank the petitioners, who are in the Public Gallery today, for all the work they have done. A particular shout out goes to Sarah—I am thinking of Jess. The issue is not rare. In my constituency alone, Claire in Appleton lost her husband, William, while Stevie in Appleton lost her dad Bubba a month ago tomorrow. In Farmoor, Cumnor and Besselsleigh, three people are fighting for their lives, including my sister, Georgie. Her courage and determination has been fantastic.

I want to focus on a few things. First, I want to advocate for flash frozen tissue nationally, on a mandatory basis. The genetic code in those tumours is the key to solving that cancer and fighting it. At the moment, we are taking a lot of those tumours out and putting them in the bin. That is killing people. If we had a mandatory focus on that at scale, it would be more possible economically, in addition to our moral duty to keep everybody alive for much longer. We should try to push towards that, so that we have whole genome sequencing of those tumours. That is key to making the UK a leader, and it would drive a lot of research funds into the UK. I ask the Minister to consider that.

I have another request for the Minister. There is no single accountable lead for brain cancer now. Thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the Rare Cancers Act 2026 introduced a lead, which is equivalent to 0.1 full time employee. The national cancer plan has put £5,000 towards a lead. Getting a rare cancer lead who is full time and fully accountable would be a great help.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is great to see Members in the Chamber in such great numbers. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her determination in this area. Through her sheer force of nature, she has raised the funds to start these trials that are now ongoing in memory of Margaret, who we all miss dearly. That is testament to her sheer determination to put this situation right. We are all behind her.

Unfortunately, the experience described by so many Members today—such as that of Margaret, of my cousin Ewan and of so many of our constituents, where fit, healthy individuals are told that there are no further treatments available for them and there is nothing to try or test—is too common across the country. It is what so many of our constituents are told.

I want to press the Minister on some points. As a Government, we have announced more training places in recent weeks. To the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), there are just 40 neuro oncologists with a specialism in brain cancer around the country. Are we allocating some of those training places specifically to solve this problem of the pipeline of doctors coming through? There are just 15 trials going on for brain cancer, compared with 54 for pancreatic cancer. What measures is the NHS taking to inform patients of the trials available to them?

Members are in the Chamber today in great numbers, which sends a clear message to the pharmaceutical industry that we want more emphasis on trials in this area. We will not stand for their inaction any longer. For too long, they have put brain cancer in the “too difficult” box. By showing up in these numbers today, we are showing that the market is failing patients and that they must act. The Government must also use all levers at their disposal to act on this.

Behind every statistic is a human face. For me, it is my senior parliamentary assistant, Dan Horrocks—a father, husband, a four time cancer survivor and a brilliant colleague who has fought this disease for 14 years. We are incredibly proud of Dan’s strength and his tireless campaigning, for which he was deservedly awarded the British Empire Medal in the new year honours list.

Dan’s journey began with persistent headaches. Three separate GPs missed it. It was only caught because of the keen eyes of a local optician at a free eye test. That is the first hurdle: diagnosis. Far too often, symptoms are dismissed as routine migraines, but the second hurdle is even more devastating. Once a patient is diagnosed with an aggressive glioblastoma, they are offered the NHS gold standard of treatment: surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Let us be honest: that gold standard has barely changed in decades. It is designed to manage the disease for a short time, not to cure it, and when it runs its course, our constituents are effectively told to go home and to prepare to die.

These outcomes do not happen by accident. They are the direct result of structures and choices made over many years. When a clinical trial does happen, like the groundbreaking trial established in memory of Margaret, the sister of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), it happens because a handful of grieving, determined people refuse to take no for an answer.

If it requires extraordinary political intervention just to start one trial, the system is fundamentally broken, and we need a radical shift. First, we must demand clear, measurable targets, specifying exactly how many clinical trials we expect to see, how many patients will be recruited and who is accountable. Secondly, we need an immediate, aggressive focus on repurposing existing licensed drugs that already control other cancers to see whether they can cross the blood brain barrier and save lives today. We cannot allow the next generation of patients to be left stranded. Dan and the thousands of families like his are not asking for miracles; they are looking for justice.

It is wonderful to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. There cannot be many areas of policy where campaigners are asking not for more money, but simply for money that has already been promised to be used. I really hope that the Minister can offer some good news today about the remaining £23 million to £25 million, because there are so many areas where it could make a big difference—and fast. There are doctors and scientists who can see this money but cannot reach it. It is an enormous waste of talent, goodwill and, importantly, hope.

We are three years beyond the point at which all of the £40 million should have been awarded already, yet at the last indication not even half has been issued and spent. That must be beyond frustrating for so many families across the country. Colleagues will have heard me speak about my two amazing constituents Khuram and Yasmin. Their daughter Amani tragically passed away from a glioblastoma in February 2023 aged just 23. Before her death, the family organised Luton Walk of Hope. Amani spoke to those attending, and her words summarised the mission of so many cancer sufferers: “It might be too late for me, but I want to make a difference for others.”

As Amani’s cancer progressed, her parents had to fundraise £100,000 for treatments. No one should have to fundraise to access a drug that could save their lives. Amani’s mum, Yasmin, is in the Public Gallery. She has said that all the fundraising they do is in the hope that brain tumour diagnosis will not have to be a life sentence for others. But brain tumour sufferers and their families need more than hope; they need concrete promises and actions that follow through. That means the dedicated money being spent, expert doctors being listened to, improved diagnosis, timelines for research being set—and, importantly, honoured—and clinical trials being massively expanded. The urgency felt by families needs to be mirrored by policymakers in Whitehall.

It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Mrs Barker. In April 2025, my constituent Phil was diagnosed with aggressive, incurable glioblastoma. Due to the tumour’s location, surgery was not possible, and Phil was given a prognosis of just 12 to 18 months. As parents of two young children, Phil and his wife found themselves navigating a complex system and researching treatments, clinical trials and emerging therapies, and doing so pretty much on their own. Despite evidence suggesting that immunotherapy could help Phil, NHS funding for treatment was denied, and he could only access it through his own tenacity and pharmaceutical company support. Phil’s experience is typical for brain cancer patients, represented by everyone here and beyond: limited treatment options, barriers to clinical trials and being forced to fight your own corner to get anywhere at all.

I thank Phil and his family for sharing his story with me and allowing me to share it with you, Chair, and with the Minister. I also thank the 1,241 people who signed the petition in my constituency, many of whom are directly affected. Alongside everybody here, we simply ask that the Government deliver the full funding promised for brain tumour research. Given that only 12% of patients get to participate in trials, we also ask the Government to ensure comprehensive access to those trials for Phil and for everyone.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the 54 constituents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition calling for an increased focus on tackling brain cancer.

I will speak about Owain’s law, a campaign that seeks to end the postcode lottery across the UK in accessing brain tumour tissue freezing. That is critical for preserving the fresh DNA and RNA samples needed for later advanced genomic testing, clinical trials and personalised treatment. The current postcode lottery in accessing fresh brain tissue freezing means reduced treatment options for many and barely improving survival rates for decades.

I was really pleased to meet Ellie James again last week, after her husband Owain died from a grade 4 brain tumour aged just 35. During his treatment, Owain and Ellie pursued a personalised cancer vaccine using Owain’s tumour tissue. However, just 1 cm of the 7 cm tumour removed during the surgery was fresh frozen. While that allowed three personalised vaccines to be made, when the tumour returned no further treatments could be made. Owain later died in June 2024. No one had discussed with Owain or his family how the tissue would be preserved or the implications of that decision.

Like others, I again press the Minister on whether she will set out a funded delivery plan to close these gaps in freezer capacity. No one should have a postcode lottery on those important matters of life and death. Will she commission new national guidance on the removal and freezing of suitable brain tissue following diagnosis? Owain’s tragic case needs to be learned from if we are to improve treatments for those with brain cancer. Relatively small investments, which are already waiting to be spent, could close the postcode lottery in freezing capacity, ensure uniform quality of care and have the potential to be truly transformational.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. There are moments that remind us why we are MPs and what we are here to do, and there are people who do the same. Archie Goodburn is one of those people.

I met Archie when he was 23. He is an elite athlete—a Commonwealth swimmer for Scotland. However, Archie has an inoperable brain tumour, and through the most unforgivable sequence of events he was being denied access to a drug that clinicians told him could make a difference and ultimately save his life. The drug is called Vorasidenib. It has been successfully trialled in our health board in Lothian and was available in other parts of Scotland, but not for Archie in Edinburgh. Instead, he was told he could have chemo or radiotherapy, both of which have side effects that could affect his cognitive and—terrifyingly for a potential Olympic athlete—physical ability.

Archie’s story illustrates what is wrong with our current approach to brain cancer—to its research, treatment and the patients themselves. Archie and his family have done a fantastic job, but they should not have to. The money that was promised for brain cancer research 10 years ago is still not fully disbursed or spent. In the petition there are specific asks to ringfence not just that money, but new money; to have a dedicated full time brain cancer lead who has personal experience of the disease; and the right to use drugs that are licensed in this country already for other conditions to see if they work for brain tumours. I feel that the Government are open to those suggestions, because when I raised Archie’s case in the Chamber, a Health Minister came to find me in the Tea Room to talk about it. Another stopped me in Portcullis House to ask about it. I know that the will is there, and I ask the Minister that she carry it through.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for bringing up the case of my constituent, Owain James, whose wife is here in the Public Gallery looking upon us. I will be quick—I would love to talk more about Owain’s case, but my hon. Friend has done that quite eloquently.

There should be no more cases like Owain’s. He was 34 years of age. There was an opportunity to save him. If we had frozen his tumour properly, there might have been an opportunity for more vaccines. Ellie and I recently met the Minister, who was helpful, to talk about freezers that freeze to minus 80°; I understand that NHS England is looking into that issue, and the Minister said that a mapping programme would take place. I wonder whether that mapping will take place, and how it will progress in the future.

Further to that, the most important thing is updated guidance. The guidance should not compromise diagnosis, which must always come first; but once the tissue needed for diagnosis has been secured, services should be encouraged to maximise the amount of sustainable brain tumour tissue that is fresh frozen and stored. Will the Minister confirm whether NHS England will issue or update guidance to relevant neuropathology units on fresh freezing suitable brain tumour tissue, so that patients do not lose future options that might be valuable? Will the Minister also look at surgical consent protocols? One thing that came over from Ellie’s story is that Owain was not sure of the options available to him. Informed consent needs to be given, and it needs to be the consent of the patient. Will the Minister also look into that?

On a personal point, I wonder whether, on those changes being put in place, they could be designated “Owain’s law”. That would be a tribute to Ellie, to her campaigning and above all to the daughter Owain left behind. I know the Minister is compassionate and caring—she was involved in this campaign since long before she was appointed Minister—and I know she will bring good news today.

I am particularly keen to speak in this debate, having had a constituent write to me powerfully on behalf of a close relative with a brain tumour. That constituent rightly highlighted that we must and can do better, not just on research and on improving access to innovative treatments, but in supporting those with brain tumours and their families while they are going through any such treatments.

I pay tribute to the petitioners, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, and to fantastic charities and organisations, including Brain Cancer Justice and many others, for their work. I also pay tribute particularly to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) who, through her passion and determination, has done so much to raise awareness of this issue in this House and beyond. More importantly, she has not just spoken about that passion, but turned it into a reality for many people. We need to focus on access to innovative treatments when all else has not worked, and on the need for research and progress—something we call for in this debate—but also to do more in real time to support those with brain tumours.

I have several questions for the Minister. What progress have the Government made on implementing each measure in the Rare Cancers Act? On behalf of my constituent who wrote and posed questions, I ask the following. What Government investment is committed year by year to research into brain cancer and its treatments, particularly brain cancers of paediatric patients and young people? How many clinical trials relating to brain cancer are expected to start in the UK this year? What assessment have the Government made of the adequacy of incentives to industry in the 2021 legislation for clinical trials in this area, for research and for participation in the orphan drugs regime?

In this place, and in life, there is a time to act, and I believe that this is that time. We have huge potential and huge talent in this country. Let us help to focus that on saving more lives and giving more precious time to more people.

One of my constituents, Joseph Towers, has experienced at first hand the brutality of brain cancer and the delays in treatment that affect people across the country. I am short on time, so I will say these few things directly to the Minister. The UK ranks 22nd out of 29 wealthy nations for our five year brain cancer survival rate. Other countries are doing it better and we can improve too. One area that we need to improve immediately is access to drug trials. My constituent Joseph was simply lucky to get on to a drug trial; many are not. There are also delays in rolling out medicines once they are approved. His drug, Vorasidenib, had its approval set back by three months because of discussions on changes to its quality adjusted life year scores.

What are the solutions? We need the full time brain cancer specialist within the national cancer plan. We need to spend the money that is already allocated and, of course, ensure future funding. People living with brain cancer need to be allowed access to trials and drugs that are not specifically designated for brain cancer. We are very short on treatments; tumours are often inoperable, so drugs are the main way forward. As the petition says, genome sequencing is vital for developing and delivering treatments. We need to understand the market forces determining which conditions get privately funded by pharmaceutical companies, and fill the gaps where needed.

We also need to make sure that bureaucracy does not delay drug trials. Yes, drug trials take time to ensure safety and efficacy, but too often what takes up time is delays in approval and funding, rather than the science. When patients are excluded from a trial—for proper scientific reasons and for the veracity of the trial—I would argue for compassionate access to those drugs alongside the trial.

We owe it to Joseph, to the families who have contacted us ahead of the debate and to every person who will receive this devastating diagnosis to do better and to move far more quickly than we are moving today.

I call Ann Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Mrs Barker; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is a privilege to talk today on behalf of my constituents about the impact of living with a brain tumour. They have raised four similar concerns: far too little research, the need to improve therapies, a lack of clinical trials and the preservation of tissue. Improvements in those areas would give those living with brain tumours a fighting chance to survive and thrive.

One person who has been able to thrive after her diagnosis is my constituent Mared. Mared was a hugely talented singer songwriter who went by the stage name of Swci Boscawen. She was 26 when her brain tumour was diagnosed; after receiving surgery, she lost the ability to sing and compose, but in recovery she discovered a passion for art as a form of therapy. She adopted the new name of Swci Delic, and her musical creativity changed to artistic creativity. She lives locally. Her cancer is still there, but she lives a fulfilling life within her physical ability. Her artwork can be seen around Carmarthen town, created with the engagement of local young people. Nathan, who was in school with my daughters, is also living with a brain tumour, and his story is very similar to Mared’s. Both of them started with GP visits because of severe headaches, and both eventually received brain scans that confirmed their diagnosis.

My ask of the Minister is very simple: can we please have a greater percentage of funds for brain tumour research, as well as clinical trials and further treatment options for patients, leading to better outcomes for our young people? Today I have been given the privilege of being the voice for Mared, Nathan and others like them, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address their concerns.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.

Brain cancer is one of the most devastating diseases facing families across our country, and it kills more people under the age of 40 than any other cancer. I want to highlight the experience of one of my constituents, Ellen. Her husband Jason, an Army veteran from Mansfield and a father of two, was diagnosed with a brain tumour. Ellen told me that when they received the diagnosis, their “world completely fell apart”. Since then Jason has relied on private treatment, including treatment overseas, at a significant cost to the family, and has struggled to access clinical trials despite wanting to take part in them. Their experience raises an important question: are we doing enough to ensure that brain tumour patients can access every possible treatment opportunity?

I would welcome an update from the Minister on what can be done to improve access to clinical trials for brain tumour patients. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Brain Tumour Research centre of excellence at the University of Nottingham; through advanced imaging, genomics and innovative new approaches, it is helping to drive progress in the fight against this terrible disease. For families like Jason’s and Ellen’s, this is not an abstract policy issue, but a daily reality. We owe it to them and to all those affected by brain cancer to support research, improve diagnosis and give this disease the urgency it deserves.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I speak on behalf of my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland, who are facing a quiet but devastating crisis. By the year 2035, the number of brain tumour cases in Northern Ireland is projected to skyrocket by some 36%. Those are our mothers, our fathers, our siblings and our children—yet today, despite the standard pipelines of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the average survival time for an aggressive glioblastoma remains a heartbreaking 15 months. Queen’s University Belfast’s Johnston cancer research centre is making massive, globally recognised strides. Our local clinical teams are exploring rapid nanopore sequencing to drop diagnosis times from weeks to mere hours. I put on record my thanks to Brainwaves NI, which is fundraising all the time in Northern Ireland.

I have three asks of the Minister. The first is UK wide collaboration, working directly with the Northern Ireland Department of Health to ensure that our local institutions are fully integrated into all national brain cancer clinical trial networks, which they are not at present. The second is to support the pooling of resources, so that promising lab discoveries at Queen’s University can break through the bureaucratic barriers and reach patients at the bedside even faster. The third is to address the practical hurdles for families, ensuring that if a cutting edge trial is available only across the water, financial support for travel is readily accessible to my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland.

Our scientists have the will and our patients have the courage. I gently say that this Government—my Government, my Minister—must do more to provide the backing.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I pay tribute to all those who signed this petition and to Brain Cancer Justice. I have been invited to speak this evening by one of my constituents, Owen Sutton, who currently lives with a brain tumour. He was diagnosed at university and is now an ambassador for the Brain Tumour Charity. Some 13,000 people are diagnosed with a brain tumour every year. When I counted earlier, there were 35 people in this room—that is equivalent to the number of people diagnosed every day.

Research from the Brain Tumour Charity has also estimated that there are huge long term costs associated with the low survival rates of brain cancer. Loss of earnings and long term care costs amount to £18.7 billion, which is felt by both the economy and the NHS. Currently, brain tumours account for just 3.2% of the national cancer funding, despite being the biggest killer of adults under 40.

Patient polling found that less than half of respondents had been informed of the option to participate in a clinical trial, with just 12% ultimately taking up that opportunity. I therefore support the national cancer strategy’s ambition to make the NHS the first choice venue for clinical trials, but I also advocate that perhaps a right to try option should be incorporated into that—something Owen wanted me to mention.

In keeping with the universal values of the NHS, we hope that all those affected by brain tumours can have access to world leading treatments, so I support calls to increase the funding and to spend the money that we know is already due to be spent. We must all carry the strength and inspiration of Owen’s story, choosing hope over fear and turning the terminal into the treatable.

I will begin by paying homage to a young girl by the name of Eiliyah: when her tumour took over her right hand, she began to learn to draw with her left, because she loved arts and crafts more than anything else. When she could not dart around any more, she started to bum shuffle everywhere. She was unfortunately diagnosed with DIPG, one of the most aggressive childhood brain tumours known to medicine. The family had a bit of hope but, before proper treatment could start, the tumour returned again. Her family could only watch as she lost her movement, her speech, her sight and finally her ability to eat. She died on 2 May this year, surrounded by those who loved her. She was just a child.

Eiliyah’s aunt asked me quietly to speak for her today, but I would like to speak quietly also for my own sister, only a handful of years older than me, who went from full of life to grade 4 glioblastoma and then death in under six months. During that time, she was barely offered any treatment at all, and what she was offered was decades old. That is the heart of the problem: as we have heard today, brain cancer is the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40, yet our survival rates lag behind most of Europe. Nowhere is that cost clearer, as we have heard, than on tissue freezing, so will the Minister commit to a national standard for tissue freezing?

I ask the Minister for three things: first, to increase brain cancer research funding urgently and substantially, with ringfenced investment for diseases such as DIPG; secondly, to ensure that every patient can access whole genome sequencing; and, finally, to enshrine the right to try—the right to reach clinical trials, innovative treatments and immunotherapies even when standard treatment has failed. Treatments have not meaningfully changed in decades. Eiliyah deserved better; my sister Shahida deserved better; Owain deserved better; the families who will hear the words “brain cancer” for the first time this week deserve better. I urge the Minister to act, and to act now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing the debate. He is a true champion for people suffering with brain cancers. I also pay tribute to and recognise the excellent work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

I pay tribute to everyone who worked hard on this important petition, especially Georgie Maynard and Sarah Bainbridge. It was a privilege to join Georgie and other campaigners in March to submit the petition to No. 10. A brain cancer diagnosis is utterly devastating and life changing. More than 12,000 people a year are diagnosed with this brutal condition.

Zoe Wilson was a well loved English teacher, a dedicated mother to her two boys, John and Mark, and wife to Matthew. She was the kind of neighbour who delivered fresh baked goods to your doorstep. Will my hon. Friend remember her with me, and thank Matthew for his continuing work, ever since losing her, for better outcomes for others?

I thank my hon. Friend for talking about Zoe Wilson. For her family, it must have been absolutely devastating to have had that diagnosis. I am happy to mention her, alongside him, in the debate.

Brain cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of any type of cancer, with only a quarter of adults surviving five years after they have been diagnosed. Diagnosis is often too late, and access to groundbreaking treatments is not widely available. It is a scandal that so many people live in treatment deserts and are forced to drive long journeys for treatment, often after weeks of waiting for it to begin. My Liberal Democrat colleagues—I am sure everyone in this Chamber—believe that everyone deserves high quality care, no matter where they live. That is why we have long been calling for an end to the postcode lottery in healthcare.

Shamefully, the UK is lagging behind comparable nations in brain cancer treatment. I recognise that research into brain tumours is uniquely challenging, and yet with our world beating life sciences sector, universities and the NHS, the UK should be a world leader in cancer research. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the national cancer plan. The plan’s commitment to improve early diagnosis of brain cancers, to introduce new target treatments and to incentivise research and investment in rare cancers, including brain cancer, are positive steps forward, but turning those commitments into impacts will need leadership, investment and accountability, all of which are proving difficult in an NHS engaged in a distracting and costly reorganisation, at a time of already highly constrained resources and unprecedented demand.

Furthermore, the plan’s goal for the UK to be in the top 25% of countries for brain cancer survival rates by 2035 could be seen as a lack of ambition, given the potential of the UK life sciences and research sector. For the UK to become a world leader in cancer research, the Liberal Democrats would pass a cancer survival research Act, requiring the Government to co ordinate and ensure funding for the least survivable cancers, including brain cancer.

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should clarify more details of the funding announced, the funding allocated and the funding actually paid out under the existing funding plan since 2018, and should work harder to speed up the distribution of funding, not just the amount of funding that is in the pot?

The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I absolutely agree with her. In that context, it is it is shocking that much of the funding promised for research in honour of Dame Tessa Jowell in 2018 is yet to be spent. Still about 75% of brain cancer research funding comes from charitable organisations; not enough comes from the Government.

This is an issue close to my heart, because I lost both a friend and a mentor in the late, great Tessa Jowell to this dreadful disease.

Brain cancer has also impacted many of my constituents and their families, including Lorna, who is currently supporting a family member through her diagnosis. So, given that there are 13,000 new cases recorded each year and research spending lags behind need, does the hon. Gentleman agree that much more must be done to deliver better and more effective treatments?

The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to spend more on investment in research and treatment.

In addition, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission estimates that just over two thirds of treatment centres in England currently offer whole genome sequencing, which is essential to provide improved diagnosis and treatment options. Advances in genomics have offered great promise to people with brain cancer and the UK has taken steps to become a world leader in genomic research. However, progress has stalled, with genomic services across the UK not being set up to facilitate research. To ensure that brain cancer patients do not miss out on potentially life saving treatment, the UK’s national test directories need to be expanded.

Sadly, many people with brain cancer were let down by the last Conservative Government, who broke their promise on a 10-year cancer plan, which would have made a real difference to patients. The national cancer plan will hopefully be an opportunity to address meaningfully many of these issues, including patchy data collection and shortages in the cancer workforce.

On that last point, it is worth mentioning that we, NHS staff and patients are still waiting for the long delayed workforce plan. It was due in the spring, but we will soon be in mid summer. A workforce plan is so important. We need further investment in the research workforce, with support for clinical and non clinical career development to build our research capacity. As others have already said today, the development of a proper and improved workforce plan is desperately needed.

That is why the Liberal Democrats would start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding gutted by Donald Trump. We would waive burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers. Astonishingly, global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 per person for a five year visa. So, a leading scientist has to find £24,000 if they have a partner and two children who they want to bring to the UK with them. That is much more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where the cost is typically £200 or £300 per person. Do we really need to make it so expensive for much needed research talent to come to the UK? And can the Minister look at this issue?

For the sake of patients and their families, I hope that—

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is needed right now is leadership, and that the large number of MPs in this Chamber today are looking towards the Minister and urging her to lead on this issue?

I thank my hon. Friend for that very good intervention, which is also very timely as I come to the end of my speech. She is absolutely right that leadership is needed. I have every confidence in this Minister that there will be some leadership, and I think that the large number of MPs in this Chamber today shows that there are many people in this Parliament who want her to succeed and to show the leadership that we need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this important debate, and to other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to it. I also pay tribute to Brain Cancer Justice and to all the people—over 109,000 in total—who signed this petition to ensure that we have had the opportunity to debate this important issue here today.

At its heart, this debate has been about the patients, families and loved ones whose lives have been irreparably changed by a brain tumour diagnosis. For many families, of course, that diagnosis arrives suddenly, although too often it is also delayed.

My constituent from East Grinstead, Holly Vivian, an NHS nurse, is very concerned about late diagnosis, particularly given her own medical training, saying that she was concerned and was not diagnosed until she had her second child because of pregnancy symptoms. Whether it is the constant headaches that we have heard about today, or light vomiting, it is really important to give those patients the best chance to be heard.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing Holly’s story, which sadly, is far too frequent. I remember from my time in clinical practice that those subtle signs were sadly sometimes missed. We need to do much more to ensure that our clinicians are aware of them so that they can make an early diagnosis.

Of course, when those diagnoses arrive, it is inevitably devastating. It turns lives upside down in an instant. Parents are told that their child has a condition with few treatment options, husbands and wives are forced to confront an uncertain future and children become carers. Families who should be planning birthdays, holidays and life milestones instead find themselves navigating endless hospital corridors, scans and treatments. Behind every statistic is a person and behind every policy discussion is a family desperately hoping for more time.

Today, I want to particularly recognise the courage of those families whose stories have been shared, often while living through the most unimaginable grief, so that others might one day have a better chance. I also want to pay tribute to the remarkable charities, researchers, clinicians and campaigners who have worked tirelessly to keep this issue on the national agenda: organisations such as the Brain Tumour Charity, Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and countless others that have not only supported patients and families, but have driven forward research, awareness and innovation.

To add to that collection of notable charities and individuals, Brainwaves NI has done substantial fundraising and has helped to add to the research at Queen’s University and others. There are many others, and we cannot mention them all, but every one has done a grand job and we owe a debt to them that can never be repaid.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are countless charities that have done a huge amount of work, and what they are doing is making a tangible difference to people’s lives.

Sadly, brain tumours remain one of the most challenging forms of cancer. In many instances, outcomes are no better than when I worked as a doctor in neurosurgery almost a decade and a half ago. The less survivable cancers taskforce has highlighted that one year survival rates for less survivable cancers, which include brain cancers, remain significantly lower than the average across all cancers. Despite advances in medicine, outcomes for many patients have not improved at the pace that we would all wish to see. That is why the concerns raised by the petitioners are so important. Quite rightly, the petition calls for greater investment in research, wider access to whole genome sequencing and stronger support for innovative treatments. Those are priorities that cannot be ignored any longer.

However, before I turn to those challenges, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the progress that has been made. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has established the brain tumour research consortium, which has brought together dozens of organisations to co ordinate research and is backed by up to £25.5 million of investment. The recently enacted Rare Cancers Act 2026 represents another significant step forward, and I want to commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work in bringing that legislation on to the statute book.

The establishment of the national speciality lead and a dedicated cancer registry service have the potential to improve co ordination and data collection and strengthen research. The national cancer plan has recognised rare cancers as a priority area and committed to expanding successful models such as the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. Those developments are of course all welcome. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we supported the Rare Cancers Act throughout its passage through Parliament because we recognise that patients with rare cancers deserve the same urgency, focus and ambition as those with more common conditions.

However, the reality is that legislation alone does not save lives; the real test is the effectiveness of its implementation. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could update us on what progress has been made in establishing the new structures required under the Rare Cancers Act. In particular, has the national specialty lead been appointed? When will the rare cancer registry become fully operational? How will success be measured? Patients and families deserve to know when they will begin to see tangible benefits from the legislation that Parliament has passed.

The petition also raised important questions about research participation and access to innovation. The Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission highlighted that fewer than 5% of eligible adult brain tumour patients were able to access whole genome sequencing because of limitations in tissue sampling and biobanking capacity, which is deeply concerning. Genome sequencing has enormous potential to improve the understanding of tumour biology, identify personalised treatment pathways and increase participation in clinical trials. However, opportunities remain unevenly distributed across the country. The Brain Tumour Charity has also highlighted significant variations in infrastructure and staffing across neuro oncology centres.

As the hon. Gentleman describes, there is a postcode lottery in the treatment that people can access. In Hastings, a patient has to do a four hour round trip to Brighton hospital to receive their basic treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must address this postcode lottery in brain cancer treatment?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that when someone is facing a devastating crisis, but has to travel excessive distances to get the treatment they deserve, there is something wrong with the system.

If we are serious about accelerating research, we must ensure that every patient has a fair opportunity to participate in it. That requires investment not only in laboratories and technology, but in a workforce that supports research and clinical innovation. What specific action are the Government taking to address those disparities and ensure that advances in research can benefit patients regardless of where they live?

The petition also reflects a wider frustration felt by many families facing brain cancer. When conventional options are exhausted, patients understandably look to emerging treatments and clinical trials with hope. Such hope is entirely understandable, but at the same time we must maintain rigorous standards of safety and evidence. The challenge for us as policymakers is not choosing between innovation and safety; it is ensuring that innovation can be assessed, trialled and adopted as quickly as possible, when the evidence supports it. That is why clinical research capacity and trial recruitment matter so much, and it is why access to cutting edge treatments must remain a key priority.

On that point, the Government have committed to increase spending on branded medicines, and they have set out ambitious objectives for expanding participation in commercial clinical trials. Of course those ambitions are welcome, but they must be matched by delivery. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that increasing spending on branded medicines will carry significant costs over the coming years, so can the Minister explain how the Government intend to fund those commitments? Patients need confidence that the announcements we hear today will be translated into treatments tomorrow.

Similarly, while we welcome the publication of the national cancer plan earlier this year, questions remain about its implementation. The shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), supported the ambitions set out within the plan. However, he quite rightly called for clear, funded milestones, and those questions remain unanswered. When will the Government publish measurable targets for rare cancers, and how will progress be reported?

For all the challenges that we have discussed today, it is important that we recognise the reasons for hope. Medical research continues to achieve what once seems impossible. Just a few years ago, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma was regarded as one of the most devastating childhood brain cancers, with very few children surviving beyond two years. However, through participation in innovative clinical trials, a young boy from Belgium named Lucas Jemeljanova experienced something quite extraordinary. Having been diagnosed at six, he entered the trial and, over time, scans showed a shrinking tumour, which eventually disappeared altogether. Lucas is now 13, and he is considered cured.

With every breakthrough that provides a scientific curiosity, the challenge before us as a Government, as an Opposition and as clinicians and researchers is to ensure that those breakthroughs happen more quickly and often, so that they can reach patients quicker. That is what the families behind this petition are seeking, and they deserve no less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the petition on behalf of the many people who signed it and secured the debate today. It has been so well attended, as we can see from the number of Members here and the fact that the Gallery is full, which really shows its importance.

Earlier this month, I was honoured to join a meeting of the all party parliamentary group on brain tumours, which was also very well attended, and to hear the personal stories and lived experience shared by those affected by brain cancer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her tireless work as the chair of the all party group and for her committed campaigning on behalf of brain cancer patients in memory of her sister Margaret McDonagh, who so many of us knew so well and remember so fondly.

A remarkable North Somerset constituent, Jane, is watching this debate. Having been diagnosed in March last year with an incurable brain tumour, Jane has asked me to speak in the debate, because she wants us all to understand what it feels like to be told, “Treatment will manage your tumour, not cure it.” Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituent Jane is not just brave, but amazing?

Absolutely. I cannot think of a worthier cause than turning brain cancer from terminal to treatable. That is something that we can absolutely all get behind. I am especially grateful to Brain Cancer Justice, which led the campaign for the petition and this very well attended debate, as well as Brain Tumour Research and the Brain Tumour Charity. They all do fantastic work advocating for people diagnosed with a brain tumour and their loved ones.

Since this Government came into office, over 232,000 more people got a cancer diagnosis or an all clear on time, about 42,000 more patients started treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. A lot has been done, but there is a lot more to do, especially on rare and less common cancers. That is why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), made sure that the national cancer plan would be the first plan in history to have a chapter dedicated to rare cancers.

There are not enough treatment options available for people with brain cancer. I have spoken to so many patients and campaigners who are searching for that glimmer of hope on clinical trials. This desperate search takes a real toll on them, not to mention their families and carers. We will prioritise their access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams, and we want to ensure that all patients with rare cancer can benefit from the best care available. We will work with charities to make sure that patients are getting the right information to manage their cancer care. We are rolling out Jess’s rule and tracking cancer diagnosed in emergency settings.

Notwithstanding the important points raised by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri Hurst), about robust safeguards in the testing of new treatments, the United States has legislated for a right to try for those who have got to the point at which they have little other option left. Will the Government look to that model to ensure that brain tumour patients can have the right to try innovative new treatments?

I am certainly happy to look at the model in the US around the right to try.

I also want to update the House that we are appointing a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will sit on the national cancer board. The benchmark is to improve outcomes and five year survival rates for 14 less common cancers, including brain cancer. I know that Members will all hold us to account on that score.

I join the Minister in paying tribute to the many brain cancer patients and their families who have campaigned for change. They include Joanna and Dennis from Beckenham and Penge, who lost their son Ollie at just 29 years old, and Tessa Jowell, who brought national attention to brain cancer nearly 10 years ago when she was diagnosed. I had the honour of working for her, and she would have been my neighbouring MP. I do a lot of work with the Tessa Jowell Foundation; tomorrow is their gala dinner in the Olympic Park, another legacy of Tessa’s. Will the Minister support the foundation’s calls for faster access to trials, including the right to try, precision medicine, equitable care regardless of postcode and—as Tessa would say—patient centred care, helping people to live well with cancer and not simply die of it?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the late, great Tessa Jowell in this debate. I had the privilege of being the shadow Health Minister and speaking in one of the debates we had in the House, and her legacy does live on.

I must move on, because I want to talk about brain cancer research.

Will the Minister give way?

This will have to be the last intervention.

On the fully accountable lead, there are two positions: one has £5,000 in funding and one is 0.1 of a full time employee. Will the Minister commit to one person who is fully funded and fully accountable, please?

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I really do have to get through some things and respond to the number of people who spoke about brain cancer research, because nearly all hon. Members mentioned that.

Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we have directly invested more than £32 million since the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and so many other colleagues mentioned the £40 million commitment for brain cancer research in 2018 and the fact that it had not all been spent. Prior to the general election in 2024, that was the case, but I can confirm that since the general election, the spend from NIHR programmes alone has now been in excess of £40 million since 2018.

That £40 million is not a funding ceiling. We will continue to fund research that is recommended by our funding committees and independent peer reviewers. That includes more than £25 million for the NIHR brain tumour research consortium, which brings together 48 organisations across the UK in a national, co ordinated effort to help deliver better research faster. We are also partnering with Cancer Research UK, providing almost £3 million to co fund the brain tumour centres of excellence; this collaboration will accelerate the delivery of innovative treatments to patients. We will continue to build on our investments and fund high quality brain cancer research.

As we reaffirmed in the national cancer plan, the Government will implement the Rare Cancers Act in full, starting with the appointment of an NIHR national specialty lead for rare cancers this summer. That appointment is under way, and that person, once appointed, will make sure that we are delivering research for patients. Implementing the Act will also make it easier for researchers to connect with patients living with rare cancers, including brain tumours, and streamline recruitment into clinical trials.

Our 10-year health plan will make the UK a global leader in clinical research, because we want every patient in the country to have the chance to sign up to a clinical trial should they wish to do so. The hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) all asked me about clinical trials. We have announced a clinical trials accelerator, Be Part of Research, which allows users to search for relevant studies and register their interest.

I turn to brain tissue freezing and to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) and so many others. Earlier this month, I met him and other colleagues, as well as Ellie James, the campaigner for Owain’s law. Can I just say how moved I was? My hon. Friend knows that no one can fail to be moved by Ellie’s story. She spoke for many people, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom, and I have asked the NHS to take action.

NHS England has completed a gap analysis of the need for freezer capacity, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and is looking at how to support services to provide an equitable expansion of that capacity. I have also asked the Department and NHS England to work with professional bodies, including the Royal College of Pathologists, to review tissue retention guidance and consent processes, which is what we discussed. We are looking at ways to support trusts to expand freezer capacity, and I will be happy to update colleagues in the autumn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked me about workforce. We will be publishing the 10-year workforce plan imminently; it will set out action to create a workforce ready to deliver the transformed services set out in the 10-year health plan.

I want to end by saying that I do not see it as my job just to represent the Government to patients and campaigners. It is also my job to be their voice in Government, and I take that role very seriously. For the last 20 years, I have sat where other Members are or where the shadow Minister is, so I completely understand where everyone is coming from. I think I am going to run out of time, but 35 Back Benchers have spoken—

Order.

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).