Prostate Cancer Screening
Will the Minister give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I declare an interest as an ambassador for Prostate Cancer Research. In the work that I do for that charity I have spent a lot of time in the community talking to people affected by prostate cancer and those organising drives, and I am humbled by the many men I have met for whom diagnosis has come far too late to make a difference to their life, but who have chosen to dedicate themselves to this issue and to raising awareness. I think that is extraordinary of them and, as I said, humbling. The most important thing we can do to honour them is to make sure no one else loses a father, grandfather or brother to this cruel disease. I, like many other campaigners, was disappointed with the decision of the National Screening Committee. The Budget is not until Wednesday, but colleagues know I like numbers, so I dove into the model behind that decision and found a few issues that I hope the Minister will go back and have a look at. The model assumed treatment costs of around £27,000, but most independent estimates are far higher. The model assumed that only about a quarter of men received the most advanced drugs—again, audit figures suggest that twice as many do—and that they would not receive that treatment for more than three years, when the evidence is that they receive it for longer. All those gaps understate the positive case for screening that has been verified by the independent York Health Economics Consortium. Further to that, we heard about the concern regarding overtreatment, but modern diagnostic pathways offer ways to reduce unnecessary treatment and diagnosis. Given the time available to us, we do not need to go into all the details, but the evidence this year from the Cochrane review that looked at 800,000 men’s experience, and from the Swedish study into the success of the new Stockholm3 trial, indicated that the evidence is moving faster than the committee is moving. I am delighted that the Government have committed to a living model. Will the Minister commit to publishing the workflow perhaps by January, so that we know when the model will be updated with the new evidence and what the workstreams are for that, particularly on the new survival assumptions and costs? Will she also open up the model, as National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does, to independent experts, because then we can have real scrutiny and debate the assumptions.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I too thank the Minister for her considered response. As she can see from the attendance for this debate, there is enormous interest in the timetable for updating the model with new evidence, some of which has been published already. Does my hon. Friend agree that time is of the essence, and that we would appreciate some clarity on timelines?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T5. I recently met hard-working gamekeepers and farmers in the Yorkshire dales concerned about the recent uptick in antisocial behaviour and criminality. I am grateful to the North Yorkshire chief constable for his support and responsiveness in addressing these concerns. However, does the Minister agree with me about the importance of tackling crime in remote rural areas and of effective cross-border policing to tackle criminals who are crossing police boundaries?
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Some 310 of my constituents signed the petition, placing South West Devon eighth out of all constituencies in the country. One constituent said: “At 73 I have lost many friends, at least 8, to this disease—and I have a few, three I know of, who were treated and survived due to early diagnosis.” Tina wrote: “Prostate cancer screening saved my brother-in-law; he went to the doctor for depression and was offered a routine Prostate screening test, it saved his life thankfully.” Another constituent asked me how it is possible to have reached the age of 69 without having had a PSA check from the GP, and that person was no one other than my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter. When he was feeling unwell for a while, he went to be tested and had a PSA of 251. He has benefited from the NHS gym scheme and specifically wanted me to ask the Minister this: what work will happen to ensure that the scheme happens right across the country, and is not a postcode lottery? He is aware that, although he has benefited from the scheme, not everybody can. Ultimately, he is doing well—just to reassure everyone. Finally, I want to mention the Chestnut Appeal for Men’s Health, which is a local charity that works with men who are suffering from or living with prostate cancer and their families. It has done some fantastic work with Plymouth Argyle recently.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Plymouth Argyle football club on its commitment to work with the Chestnut Appeal by running community diagnostic events annually before football matches?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Last year there was unanimous objection in Parliament and across the country to plans for aligning section 1 and section 2 forms for gun licences, mostly because it would make shotgun ownership more onerous for farmers. The Home Office has still not ruled out making those changes. Will the Home Secretary guarantee to this House now that she will not make life any harder for farmers by changing the way that we license gun ownership?
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
We have heard several times today about the importance of making informed decisions, but we cannot make informed decisions unless we are properly informed in the first place. Therefore, while there are some valid concerns about risk, the most important duty we and the Government have is to do everything we can to raise awareness so that people can make important, informed decisions. That is our duty, and I commit to doing so on behalf of my 357 constituents who signed the petition.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
Order. We have a number of people wishing to contribute. To get as many people in as possible, there will be a speaking limit of four-and-a-half minutes.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
Order. I call Kirsty Blackman.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
Order. We have had a few people withdraw, so we have a few more minutes on the clock; Back-Bench MPs now have six minutes. I call Sadik Al-Hassan.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
Order. I am not experiencing these issues—well, obviously my constituency is, but I am talking about this debate—so I ask Members not to say “You” or “Yours” please.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
I call Josh Fenton-Glynn—beat that!
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
I call Andrew Ranger to make the final Back-Bench contribution. Other Back Benchers who have contributed to the debate should make their way back to the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
I call Chris Bloore to wind up.
- Hansard source
Business without Debate
With the leave of the House, I will group the following motions together, unless there are any objections. Ordered, Business, innovation, Science and Trade Committee That Justin Madders be discharged from the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee and Nesil Caliskan be added. Defence Committee That Calvin Bailey be discharged from the Defence Committee and Graeme Downie be added. Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee That Vicky Foxcroft, Natasha Irons, Anneliese Midgley and Jo Platt be discharged from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Gill German, Alison Hume, Tom Rutland and Jo Stevens be added. Energy Security and Net Zero Committee That Ms Polly Billington be discharged from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and Catherine Fookes be added. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee That Juliet Campbell be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Helena Dollimore be added. Foreign Affairs Committee That Alan Gemmell and Uma Kumaran be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Dr Zubir Ahmed and Jessica Toale be added. Health and Social Care Committee That Dr Beccy Cooper and Alex McIntyre be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Sadik Al-Hassan and Dr Allison Gardner be added. Home Affairs Committee That Chris Murray and Jo White be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Matt Bishop and Preet Kaur Gill be added. Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee That Maya Ellis and Sarah Smith be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Sagal Abdi-Wali and Alan Strickland be added. International Development Committee That Janet Daby be discharged from the International Development Committee and Tulip Siddiq be added. Justice Committee That Pam Cox be discharged from the Justice Committee and Jon Pearce be added. Scottish Affairs Committee That Elaine Stewart be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Kenneth Stevenson be added. Transport Committee That Mrs Elsie Blundell be discharged from the Transport Committee and Samantha Dixon be added. Treasury Committee That John Grady and Yuan Yang be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Andrew Lewin and Seema Malhotra be added. Work and Pensions Committee That David Baines be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Andrew Pakes be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I declare an interest: my wife, Olivia, works as a radiographer in the national health service. The thrust of the Government information given to all our constituents is about catching cancer as early as possible; part of the dilemma is that the Government position on prostate cancer screening seems to run against that. Over the weekend, I had a dozen emails from constituents who either have had prostate cancer or have family members who have been touched by it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that dichotomy, the Government should perhaps play it a little safe and be prepared to look at this again?
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pensions
I thank the Minister for her statement. Elizabeth from Carpenders Park served as a Ministry of Justice usher for 23 years before retiring in January. Months later, she has still not received a single pension payment. That is despite spending more than two hours sitting in queues on the phone while simultaneously being prevented from using the pensions portal due to the high volume of inquiries. I am conscious that the Minister is encouraging casework to be brought to her via her good offices, but I am mindful that there will be a lot of casework across the House. What effort is she putting forward so that both Capita and the Cabinet Office increase capacity to deal with the backlog, as well as new cases?
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pensions
I thank the Minister for the briefing she gave last week to me and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and for early sight of her statement. I note that it arrived in unusually good time and hope that other ministerial offices will learn from her good example. The latest figures in the Government’s 5 October update are deeply concerning. As of the end of last month, more than 1,900 cases in four priority categories were more than 100 days old. Of those, just over 1,500 were labelled non-workable, with a further two death-in-service cases in data triage. That includes 1,049 bereavement cases and eight ill-health retirement cases, all classified as non-workable. That is not acceptable. Recent reporting also raised the prospect of bereaved families facing severe tax consequences because of delays to death-in-service benefits. Reports have suggested that the Government plan to make those bereaved families claw back this money via the Pensions Ombudsman, rather than preventing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from taxing delayed claims. To make matters worse, the Pensions Ombudsman itself estimates an 18-month wait to resolve cases. Will the Minister reassure the House and all those watching outside that this is not the case and that bereaved families will not have to proactively claw back that tax? The Minister mentioned the delivery of surgeries to many Members of this House. Last month, my casework team had a surgery with a member of Capita staff. They were expecting to come away with updates to pass on to affected constituents, but for all the cases that were discussed, there were no updates whatsoever, leaving them feeling that the surgery was a total waste of time. I know that other hon. Members have reported similar experiences. What hope do affected constituents have when reaching out to Capita if it is prepared to tell our teams that nothing has been done on their cases? The warnings about Capita were there in black and white, and not only from earlier this year, as the Minister suggested. The contract of Capita’s predecessor, MyCSP, was extended to December 2025 to allow a two-year transition nearly 18 months of which was under the current Government. There were several milestones during those 18 months that Capita failed, but the new Government chose not to act. The National Audit Office’s June 2025 report identified many missed milestones and risks around operational readiness and data transfer. The Public Accounts Committee subsequently warned of further missed milestones and the need for contingency plans, but still the new Government chose to allow the new contract to go ahead and gave it that final go-ahead. Issues with Capita have been reported across several Government contracts. Under the new provisions in the Procurement Act 2023, the Government could refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation to prevent it from winning further similar contracts. Does the Minister plan to do so? The people affected by these failings did everything asked of them. They paid into the scheme, and they served this country as civil servants. They should not have to chase their own pensions, borrow for basic bills or wait months for basic updates. I ask the Minister to give the House clear deadlines and to set out how every affected member will receive their payments, and to explain why she is so confident that the assurances that Capita now gives her will deliver results when the assurances of improvements so repeatedly given to this House by her predecessor have amounted to so very little for those retired public servants, who cannot wait any longer. Finally, I agree with the Minister that Capita should be made to put things right. Cancelling the contract would result in more disruption, but surely there is only so long for which she will put up with failed targets and broken promises of improvements, so what preparations and contingencies will her Department put in place if it is necessary to cancel this contract, and what criteria will she use for deciding when we reach that point?
- Hansard source
Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds
I think that all Members will support these proposals and hope that they succeed, but in order for new plans to be successful, it helps to understand why previous schemes might not have been. Given that last year the national homelessness strategy promised to halve rough sleeping over the course of this Parliament, with an uplift in funding, why does the Minister think that in the year to June this year homelessness was up compared to the previous year, and why is she confident that her plan will do better?
- Hansard source
Performance of Royal Mail
My hon. Friend refers to significant penalties. Ofcom has levied fines over the past few years, but that is clearly not leading to improvements in the service. Does my hon. Friend agree that it feels as though Royal Mail is treating these fines as part of the cost of doing business, and seeing it as cheaper to pay the fine than to address the problem?
- Hansard source
Police Funding Formula
It has been an incredibly hard few months for Cleveland. Local people are not interested in point scoring, but they do want answers. Cleveland has the highest recorded crime rate in the country, yet the latest Home Office data reveals that it has 17 fewer police officers than it had a year ago. Can the Minister explain why?
- Hansard source
Antisocial Behaviour
Illegal car cruising is a real blight on communities, causing noise pollution and terrifying local communities, including pedestrians and legal road users alike, on private and public roads. Will the Minister look again at the legislation to see whether this particular crime—it is a crime—can be penalised in a different way? At the moment, the generic legislation for antisocial behaviour is not catching enough people and is not a deterrent.
- Hansard source
Civil Service Pensions
Let us not sugar-coat this: the contract has been a complete flop. Yes, it was awarded under a past Government, but now it is under the current Government—but of course the Prime Minister is setting the standard of not playing the blame game, although I have heard a lot of that today. What my constituents want to hear is when this will be sorted out. Ministers have talked about a recovery plan in April—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in June—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in September —fail. There has been failure after failure after failure. Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and tell us whether Capita will be given any other Government contracts? Will my constituents be compensated? This Government wanted to be in government, so now that they are, may I ask when the Minister and the Government will take responsibility for this, take control of the contract, and get it sorted out, because my constituents are suffering?
- Hansard source
Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Over the weekend, we heard yet another policy announcement made through the media, with the Prime Minister taking time out of his very busy reality TV schedule to brief the press that he will apparently end rough sleeping by Christmas. That is a laudable aim, which I think will be shared across the House by parties of all colours—I am sure everyone in this country wants to see rough sleeping fixed as an issue once and for all—but the pledge reminds me of a similar one, made almost a decade ago, in 2017, by the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, to end rough sleeping in that city region by 2020. Again, it was a nice idea, sold in a nice, upbeat way, but sadly it did not reflect the reality. Rough sleeping still exists in Greater Manchester; in fact, the numbers have risen from 2021, and the rate even doubled in 2025-26. The Prime Minister may be in his new job—and perhaps he took inspiration from another reality TV programme, “The Traitors”, to kick out his predecessor with the help of his new Chancellor—but the Labour party is not new in government. It has been in charge now for well over two years, exactly the same period during which rough sleeping has continued to rise in Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister asked us to judge him on his record as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, so that is precisely what we are doing. Failure in Manchester is one thing, but on a national scale the numbers are even bigger. So far, the Prime Minister has said that he will put another £432 million of taxpayers’ cash towards this approach, bringing the total commitment to £874 million. The Government themselves estimate that there are around 4,000 rough sleepers on an average night, which means the policy will cost in the region of £200,000 per rough sleeper. Will the Minister confirm that and tell us where all the money will go? At the same time, the Prime Minister refuses to rule out tax rises or to upset his left-wing Back Benchers by cutting benefits, so the Government need to be honest about where all this money will come from. He has talked about bringing hope, he talks about positivity, and we all know his fondness for “good vibes”, but what really matters is the delivery and the detail. In the past, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on this issue precisely. He talked a good talk, he made the grand promises, but he could not keep them on rough sleeping. We see this time and again from Labour Members, because they believe they can solve a problem just by throwing more money at it, as if money grows on a magic money tree. They need to accept that it is not their money; it is taxpayers’ money—taxpayers who are increasingly being squeezed for all that they have; taxpayers who deserve to know where their hard-earned cash is being spent and that it is being spent wisely. I am sorry, but taxpayers are being completely let down by this Labour Government. The deficit is out of control, and rather than making the necessary cuts, they are coming back with even more spending commitments. We have a Budget later this week, and the Conservative party has been clear that the Chancellor must use it as an opportunity to properly deliver for working people across the United Kingdom. The benefits bill has to be cut, the tax burden needs to be eased on businesses and workers, and the net zero nonsense that makes our electricity and heating more expensive has to go. Of course, all of us on this side of the House want to see rough sleeping ended, but that will only be achieved through action, not through empty promises made by a Prime Minister with a track record of failure on this issue. We need to see delivery. When this Labour Government pledge to deliver, they fail to deliver. Perhaps the Minister can remind me how they are getting on with building the 1.5 million new homes they promised to build, as housing supply and rough sleeping are clearly linked. Why should anyone believe that they can deliver when the Prime Minister has repeatedly failed on this precise issue? When the Labour party fails—as it always does, every time it is in government—it is always someone else’s fault. It is always someone else’s money. Labour Members can come out with all the pledges and promises they want, but at the end of the day it is the British people who have to pay for their repeated failures.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I begin by thanking David James, director of patient projects and influencing at Prostate Cancer Research, for creating the petition, and the 101,932 people who supported it, including 195 in my constituency in the Scottish Borders.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a testament to the importance of the issue not just to her constituents—given the number who signed the petition—but to all our constituents who signed it that so many see the need for the Government to address this matter. All the charities do important work in the area.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I will make some progress, if I may, to develop a few arguments. I will take a couple of interventions, but I am conscious of the number of colleagues who are keen to speak. The petition argues: “Targeted screening for all high-risk men should be the starting point for building a screening programme that can ultimately protect all men.” It also questions the decision to offer screening exclusively to men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic variants. Since the petition was launched, the UK National Screening Committee recommendation has narrowed, and the Government have now accepted screening for a a smaller group than the petition sought. The questions for us today are: who should be included? Why have other high-risk groups been excluded? And what evidence would justify widening the programme? Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the United Kingdom. More than 68,000 men are diagnosed annually, with over 12,000 dying from the disease each year. Patient survival hinges heavily on when it is diagnosed: if it is at stages 1 or 2, nearly 100% of men survive for five years or more, whereas if it is at stage 4, only about half live for five years or more. Sir Chris Hoy, Scotland’s most decorated Olympian, knows this better than anyone. He was diagnosed in 2023, in his 40s, after a scan for shoulder pain. He had no prostate cancer symptoms at all, yet by then the cancer had spread to his bones and was terminal. His father and grandfather both had prostate cancer. Under the programme that the Government have now accepted, a family history like his would not, on its own, qualify a man for screening. Last year, the broadcaster Dermot Murnaghan was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer and, sadly, died in July this year. He said that he “fell through the gaps”, having assumed that the regular health checks he received would include a PSA—prostate-specific antigen—test. They did not. His message to other men was simple: “Get the test. Insist on the test.” Risk is not evenly distributed—age, family history, genetics and ethnicity all matter. One in eight men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime, with the proportion rising to around one in four for black men. That is why the petition argues for screening to begin with men already known to be at greater risk.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will come on to the importance of ensuring that we get a UK-wide approach, because there are subtle differences among the devolved nations. The UK Government decision to accept the UK NSC’s final recommendation in England—to provide a PSA test every two years to men aged 45 to 61 with pathogenic BRCA2 variant and a relevant family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer—is a significant step forward, and roll-out is expected from 2027. BRCA1 carriers, however, are excluded, and BRCA2 carriers must also meet the family history criterion. The Department of Health and Social Care estimates estimates that only around 1,500 men in England will be eligible, and acknowledges that most prostate cancer cases will therefore fall outside the programme. The final recommendation also falls well short of what Members from across the House have called for. In November 2025, a cross-party letter signed by more than 120 MPs, hand delivered to the Health Secretary by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), called on the Government to act for the men at greatest risk: black men; men with a family history of prostate, breast or ovarian cancer; and BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Its message was clear: perfection must not be the enemy of progress. The concern raised by those MPs reinforces the central question that the petition addresses: is the current screening programme too narrow?
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
The hon. Member makes an important point about awareness and the challenge in rural areas. I will come to that later in my speech. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton is present, having done so much to advance this issue. As Prime Minister, his Government backed the £42 million Transform trial, providing £16 million of Government funding to examine different approaches to prostate cancer screening. For the benefit of Members who are not aware, Transform is the largest prostate cancer screening trial in two decades. Designed and led by Prostate Cancer UK, with Government funding through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, it is comparing combinations of PSA blood tests, fast MRI scans and genetic saliva tests to find the safest and most effective way to detect prostate cancer before it becomes incurable. Crucially, it is designed to include far more black men than previous trials. With further Government funding announced this year, it is now worth around £60 million, and its first-stage results are expected before the end of 2027. My right hon. Friend has since become an ambassador for Prostate Cancer Research and has called for a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk. Prostate Cancer Research says that the final UK NSC recommendation “falls short of what is needed”, arguing that too many high-risk men remain outside the programme.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
The hon. Member is right. There is so much work and research going on in this area, and it is imperative that the Government acknowledge that work and react once more informed evidence becomes available. The petitioners argue that the UK NSC has “fixated on potential harms” and underweighted the benefits of earlier detection, but there are good reasons why screening programmes face a higher evidential threshold. A raised PSA level does not by itself diagnose prostate cancer, but can cause anxiety and lead to further investigation. Screening can also result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, which can cause lasting harms. Prostate Cancer Research challenged the draft modelling, arguing that it relied too heavily on older evidence and did not adequately reflect modern MRI-led diagnostic pathways. The UK NSC says it considered those criticisms and updated its modelling before reaching its final recommendation.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point about the importance of testing centres being available in rural areas, and about how community-based testing centres link into the NHS and the research that is being carried out. There remains significant disagreement about the scale of harm. The UK National Screening Committee estimates that for every 1,000 men offered screening, up to 20 could be overdiagnosed, while around two lives are extended. Analysis by Prostate Cancer Research of more contemporary, MRI-led studies estimates that, roughly, for every two lives saved, three men are overdiagnosed. The updated Cochrane review published in May found that for every 1,000 men screened, PSA-based screening is likely to reduce prostate cancer mortality by around two deaths, while questions about overdiagnosis and treatment-related harms remain. When I met researchers from the Transform team, they highlighted an important nuance: MRI has reduced unnecessary biopsies, but it has not yet been shown that those diagnostic advances sufficiently reduce overtreatment. Questions also remain about how organised screening would interact with the PSA testing that is already taking place, and about screening black men, with the UK NSC saying it has insufficient evidence to determine “whether screening would cause more good than harm.”
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. My ask is that the Government continue their engagement, but also keep assessing the evidence and information coming forward, so that patients are given the best possible opportunity for survival. The uncertainty around screening matters the most for black men, as one in four will develop prostate cancer and they are around twice as likely to die from it, but rather than being offered screening, they are being invited to take part in a trial. Transform has received up to a further £18 million to directly test several relevant questions, and to ensure that if stage 1 of the project is successful, all eligible black men aged between 45 and 74 will be invited to stage 2. Researchers told me that useful stage 1 evidence should be available before the long-term trial is complete, and will be fed back to the UK NSC. As the MP for the Scottish Borders, I want to highlight Scotland’s experience. The Scottish Prostate Cancer Initiative, supported by Sir Chris Hoy, Sir Tom Hunter, Professor Sir Chris Evans and Kenny Logan, aims to offer free PSA tests to 25,000 men aged 40 to 80 during 2026. Sir Chris described the initiative as “a major step forward for prostate cancer testing.” In May, 313 men were tested in Hawick and 515 men were tested in Galashiels, meaning that across two days 828 men in my constituency were tested. The initiative is not an NHS screening programme, but its community-based model may offer useful lessons about access, uptake and reaching men who might otherwise be missed. That matters, because inequalities remain stark. Analysis from the NHS, National Services Scotland and Macmillan Cancer Support found that men in the most deprived areas had a 98% higher risk of death from prostate cancer than those in the least deprived areas. I hope the Minister can address several points. First, will she commit to independent expert scrutiny of the UK NSC modelling, and to publish the findings and the Committee’s response in full? Secondly, as stage 1 of Transform produces significant new evidence, particularly on the screening of black men, will the Government ask the UK NSC to review its recommendation? Thirdly, how will the NHS proactively identify eligible BRCA2 carriers, particularly men whose genetic risk is not already known? Fourthly, what lessons on improving access to testing can be drawn from community-based initiatives in Scotland? Fifthly, what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments to ensure that a man’s access to screening does not depend on which side of the border he lives on? Finally, what will the Government do to make sure that the many men who fall outside the programme know they can ask their GP for a PSA test and receive clear, balanced information when they do?
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
That is a key point, because not everybody who is diagnosed with prostate cancer will necessarily need further treatment. Some people will not die of prostate cancer but will die with prostate cancer. The challenge for the Government is getting the balance right between when it is appropriate to test and treat and when it is not. I am conscious that many Members want to speak, so let me conclude. Screening is not simple. Finding more cancer is not automatically the same as saving more lives, but legitimate concerns about overdiagnosis should not prevent us from asking whether advances in diagnosis have changed where the balance now lies. More than 100,000 people have asked Parliament to consider targeted screening for men at higher risk. Since they signed the petition, targeted prostate cancer screening has entered policy for the first time. That is an important first step. The question now is how and when the boundary should move as the evidence develops. The evidence I heard when preparing for this debate points both ways. Earlier detection could save lives, but questions remain over whether modern screening can reduce past harms. The Transform trial should help to provide the answers. When it reports, the Government must be ready to act quickly; that is what the petitioners asked for and what I hope the Minister will commit to. I look forward to hearing from her and from colleagues.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
I thank David James, the petition creator, and Prostate Cancer Research for leading the campaign so effectively. That so many colleagues decided to contribute to this debate is a sign of its success. I thank all colleagues, who spoke passionately, albeit briefly, about the importance of the issue. Some shared very moving experiences, either personal or on behalf of their constituents. I thank the Minister for her response. It is important to have reassurance from the Government that they will be led by the evidence. The Minister said that she will consider further evidence that emerges from the research, but it is important that the Government do more than consider the evidence; they must be led by it.
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the people involved in the campaign and those trying to ensure that men are saved from this terrible disease have some certainty. If the Minister wrote to me with a timetable for when the Government expect to respond and deal with the issue, I could share that with colleagues who participated in this debate. Last, I thank the team at Transform. They do tremendous and inspiring work, and, ultimately, they will save the lives of more men. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Mears, acting for the Home Office, is acquiring properties to accommodate asylum seekers in small, rural communities in the Scottish Borders, where GP surgeries, schools and transport are already stretched. Scottish Borders council tells me that it is not being properly consulted by either the Home Office or Mears before these properties are acquired. Will the Minister meet me, together with representatives from Scottish Borders council, so that we can discuss how engagement can be improved?
- Hansard source
Prostate Cancer Screening
Will the Minister give way?