National Cancer (Hansard, 15 May 2002)

§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cancer services and to establish priority for the treatment of cancer in the allocation of resources within the national health service.
Right hon. and hon. Members could reasonably ask why there is a need for such a Bill, given the Government's positive moves in national health service and cancer services funding since May 1997. Indeed, there are those who argue that we can sit back and wait for it all to happen—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly please?

§ Dr. Gibson
There are those who argue that even if the diagnosis rate of one in three becomes one in two, given the increased longevity of the population in this country, we will be covered by current plans. It is also possible that cancer will become a chronic disease, we will live longer with it and advances in medical science will allow us to contain it for longer.
The Government reacted with determination to the Select Committee's July 2000 report on cancer services. They invested in radiotherapy equipment and set up the National Cancer Research Institute, incorporating charities, industry, research councils and Government Departments in a new, exciting partnership that has concentrated on a national strategy to improve cancer services, set up new research programmes, scrutiny of those programmes, advance clinical trials and arrange treatment in our cancer centres and hospital departments.
The Select Committee report also said that long-term continuity of purpose underwritten by an Act had served cancer research well in the USA. On the other side of the big pond, the National Cancer Act 1971 is now the subject of a campaign for revision by the US Senate. It is a robust Act that has stood the test of time. It has ensured that, year in, year out, the US health budget for cancer services and research is ring fenced and given bypass budget status. It has ensured long-term planning independent of bureaucratic delays and battles over funding.
The Bill would, I hope, provide the same in the UK and ensure that we have a truly national cancer programme. It would strengthen and solidify the authority of the National Cancer Research Institute, placing its funding on a statutory basis, thereby enabling it to tackle current problems of the postcode lottery, drug approvals, clinical trials and cancer registration, which is a thorny problem.
To ensure delivery, we might take a leaf from the USA, which is setting up a network of tsars—cancer quarterbacks, as they are called over there—whose remit is to ensure that each patient throughout the nation is guided through the cancer journey, from diagnosis to treatment and care. The success of the USA's programme—to which the need for this Bill is related—involves paying off the debts of medical and nursing 778 students to get them into the system; the training of new researchers, nurses and other groups; further regulation of tobacco sales; and new screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. The list goes on and on.
Although it is true that the financing systems in America are different, I do not mention America because it has a different system of health care provision. Such an initiative should prove easier in this country, because we have just one system: our national health service. American legislation ensures research and clinical development, so treatment and care merge into one another to give better patient benefits. Bill Clinton says that cancer deserves the same respect as the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism and the war effort at home. We might decry his use of military terminology in respect of cancer, but the House will get the message.
Year on year, we need to address the problems and to match the excellence achieved in cancer hospitals such as the Royal Marsden and the Christie. As an ex-medical colleague said to me the other day: The best cancer services in this country are provided by dedicated cancer hospitals, such as the Marsden, the Christie, etc. In these hospitals people get faster and better investigation and treatment, usually with newer drugs and types of treatment than are available elsewhere. The physicians at these hospitals are the engine room. of clinical cancer research in Britain. They provide treatment which cannot be bettered anywhere in the world. At present, UK clinicians cannot compete with their US colleagues because they are working with their hands tied. It is hard to enter patients into trials.
With national cancer legislation to support the National Cancer Research Institute, we could set up clinical trials comparable with those in the United States. In 1999, America set up breast cancer trials, and had the luxury of being able to compare drugs such as tamoxifen and raloxifen. The Americans put us in the shade with programmes that merge clinical research and treatment.
There is now great confidence—precipitated by the activity of this Government—in the cancer movement and community in this country. What is required is the surety of an ongoing funding mechanism. which would result in the better survival rates and treatments for which we are aiming.
The Bill would provide the necessary stability to ensure that existing cancer structures are funded, and that new initiatives are encouraged year on year. I commend it to the House.