I beg to move, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. A family member also holds shares in a medical company. Lung cancer is a rapidly fatal disease that kills nearly 33,000 people in the UK every year. Fortunately, targeted lung cancer screening has become one of the NHS’s real success stories, with Lord Darzi highlighting it as the only initiative across all cancers that has improved rates of early-stage diagnosis in recent years. Screening is without doubt the single biggest intervention in improving lung cancer survival. When the UK Lung Cancer Coalition was launched in 2005, five-year survival stood at around 8% which was among the lowest rates in Europe. The UKLCC has now set an ambition of 35% of patients surviving five years after diagnosis by 2035—a target once thought to be impossible, but now within reach thanks to screening. The Government’s decision to roll out fully the targeted national lung cancer screening programme in England for people aged 55 to 74 with a smoking history was a major milestone. To date, that programme has identified more than 10,600 lung cancers, with over 75% diagnosed at an early, treatable stage, compared with just 28% before screening was introduced. Without doubt, lung cancer screening is saving lives. It is cancer prevention in action and exemplifies the shift toward earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS 10-year plan. I place on record my thanks to the NHS cancer programme team, lung cancer advisers and the lung cancer screening clinical expert group for delivering the fastest roll-out of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world. The benefits of screening extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since I applied for this debate, the Department has committed in the national cancer plan to a timetable for the full roll-out of the programme. That is a significant achievement. The inclusion of screening in the NHS app is another welcome step, but we cannot be complacent simply because a roll-out is promised in a plan. Will the Government reaffirm their commitment to a national roll-out timetable and ensure that the programme continues at pace? The national cancer plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030. That timetable matters because any slowdown risks reversing progress on early diagnosis. Unlike other national screening programmes, lung cancer screening does not yet have guaranteed funding beyond 2030. If this programme is to remain stable and effective, it needs protected long-term funding. We must also continue to evaluate reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping to reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation. That progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure that hard-to-reach populations are not left behind. Given the importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section 7A arrangements with ringfenced funding beyond 2030? There is also concern about maintaining political momentum. With both drivers behind the national cancer plan no longer in post and Cabinet changes expected in the next few weeks, many in the cancer community are understandably concerned about whether the commitment will continue. I am sure the Minister will reaffirm his commitment. England is leading the way, but early detection must not become a postcode lottery across the UK. Wales is preparing to launch a programme in 2027, but Scotland and Northern Ireland remain significantly behind. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition is supporting discussions in both nations later this year to understand the barriers and encourage implementation. Lung cancer is the UK’s biggest cancer killer. Every eligible person, regardless of where they live, should have access to the same opportunities for early diagnosis. I urge the devolved Governments to learn from England’s experiences and introduce screening as quickly as possible. Will the Minister engage with counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to encourage progress towards UK-wide implementation? There are several threats to the programme’s success. First, there are growing concerns about integrated care board interference and the lack of ringfenced funding. Cost-cutting pressures on ICBs threaten to undermine progress. There are reports that high-performing screening teams—some seeing 55 patients a day—are being disrupted, and that screening resources are being diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening, and local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Will Ministers issue clear guidance to ICBs to prevent interference in delivery? Will they guarantee that screening funding is to be ringfenced and used solely for its intended purposes? Will they ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance? Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns. The programme’s roll-out, data systems and clinical governance arrangements require continuity, and many charities and organisations across the cancer sector are concerned about potential loss of expertise during organisational change. What safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight throughout the transition? Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest threats to the programme being sustained. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics, yet workforce planning has not kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030. Timely diagnostic and treatment services must be available so that patients diagnosed with early-stage disease can access potentially curative treatment. Demand for thoracic surgery is also rising, as early-stage lung cancers are often best treated surgically. Without sufficient capacity, opportunities to cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPs remains important too. Around one in five lung cancers occur in people who have never smoked—indeed never-smoked lung cancer is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide—but smoking cessation remains a vital part of the screening programme. Smoking causes around 72% of lung cancer cases in the UK, making cessation support one of the most cost-effective interventions available. The British Thoracic Society has called for at least one specialist tobacco adviser in every hospital. As the Government pursues its smoke-free 2030 ambitions, the NHS has a critical role to play in helping people to quit smoking. The Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges in biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment. As I have repeatedly argued in this House, the national cancer plan can succeed only if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the Government publish their delayed workforce plan and how will they support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening? Will Ministers commit to increase training places in radiology, pathology and thoracic surgery? Lung cancer screening is one of the most effective public health interventions introduced in recent years. It is saving lives, reducing inequalities and shifting diagnosis toward earlier, more treatable stages of the disease, but its future success depends on stability, protecting funds, a sustainable workforce, robust Government and UK-wide implementation. The Government have an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming outcomes for thousands of people. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition believes that doing so is essential if we are to achieve the ambition of a 35% five-year survival rate by 2035.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. We will be together all afternoon if you are here for the next debate as well. I welcome this debate on the national lung cancer screening programme. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing it, and for his dedication to anything to do with cancer. The hon. Gentleman has made a name for himself in this House for putting forward these topics. I thank him for his knowledge and for his interest. The lung cancer screening programme was set up to find lung cancer early, before symptoms appear, especially in people with a history of smoking, who are the group with the highest risk. The UK’s biggest ever early diagnosis initiative for lung cancer, the programme is delivered through targeted lung health checks. The hon. Gentleman referred to how the scheme delivers checks. They take place in local hospitals and in the community, and in vans in settings such as supermarket car parks, so nobody can say they have not had the opportunity to have the check done. The checks are designed to target those aged 55 to 74 who are current or former smokers, as identified from their GP records, who are registered with a GP and who live in an area where the programme has been rolled out. I understand that the programme is expanding rapidly, region by region and is expected to be fully rolled out across England by 2030. That is welcome. Indeed it is, I would say, almost there. We do not know how many people have attended the checks, but the United Kingdom National Screening Committee noted that more than 1.9 million have been invited to the programme, which is operating across 25% of England. NHS England has stated that, to date, some 5,037 lung cancers have been detected early since 2019; 76% of those were found at stage 1 or 2. Early-stage diagnosis improves five-year survival nearly twentyfold compared with late-stage diagnosis, so again that is a success of the programme. The screening programme has been an outstanding success, and I commend the Minister and all those involved in the Department and NHS England on such an extraordinary achievement—they deserve every accolade for it. It has fitted perfectly with the 10-year health plan. We should give credit to the Minister and the Government for the plan and for all they have done to improve health; there are many things they can point to as being successful. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place; it would not be a health debate if he and I were not here together—and here we are again. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, I warmly welcome the three shifts arising from the 10-year health plan. The screening programme is an excellent example of how well they have worked in practice. The first shift was from analogue to digital: most of the reminders for eligible patients are by text message—that is the new way of doing it; I may not be entirely geared into it, but I understand the process. The second shift was from hospital to community: running the tests in mobile units means they are less intimidating and closer to home. In fact, around 70% of initial screening was delivered via mobile units, improving access in deprived areas where smoking rates are highest. If we want to address the issue, we must go to the coal quay, as we would say, and meet and speak to the people. The third shift was from treatment to prevention. Early-stage detection dramatically improves survival. The lung checks programme has crucially identified over 100,000 incidental findings of emphysema, one of the key conditions of COPD. However, those incidental findings are not generally followed up, nor do they lead to referrals for further investigation or treatment. Will the Minister ask his Department to consider a follow-up? If incidental findings are identified and there is a chance of curing or addressing the issue, that is the time to strike. The men’s health strategy called for better incidental outcomes, and it contains the ambition of “ensuring incidental findings from the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme, including respiratory illnesses such as COPD, are followed up according to the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme incidental findings protocol and relevant NICE guidance”. Can the Minister update us on how that is progressing within the men’s health strategy? We have discussed the outstanding FRONTIER Hull trial with Professor Mike Crooks from Hull, who is piloting an integrated pathway that links screening findings to respiratory assessment and treatment in partnership with the NHS. I commend the work he is undertaking. So far, 383 of the 819 people—47%—recalled to the clinic have received a new diagnosis of COPD and started treatment through a streamlined one-stop clinic, meaning that those patients could begin treatment immediately rather than waiting while their symptoms progressed and their condition deteriorated. I underline again that it has been shown that a one-stop diagnostic clinic is feasible, can be achieved and fits well with the three shifts. The approach can be tailored to meet local needs, helping integrated care systems to reduce hospital demand and improve patient outcomes. It has been estimated by Chiesi that integrating COPD case finding into lung cancer screening could save the NHS some £33 million over 10 years. That saving cannot be ignored, especially at a time when every pound counts. If it is possible to save some £33 million, it should be in part because of the screening programme. I urge the Minister to look closely at the outcomes of the trial. This topic deserves a full debate; but more than that, it deserves an outcome. Screening saves lives, ultimately saves money and, importantly, saves needless heartbreak and pain. Let us invest in ourselves and in the process that we are discussing today.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this debate, and on his tireless campaigning both on lung cancer and on cancer more widely. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his passionate contribution to the debate. Lung cancer is a devastating disease that has caused suffering in every single community in our country. The symptoms are horrific, aggressive and deadly. Although treatments for lung cancer and understanding of its causes have improved, lung cancer still accounts for more deaths in the UK than any other type of cancer. It is the third most common type of cancer and kills 35,000 people a year in Britain. Identifying lung cancer early through screening saves lives, and the current targeted screening programme in the UK has been world leading. Screening is the single biggest intervention we can make to improve lung cancer survival rates. Of course we were all delighted when my hon. Friend’s campaigning helped to ensure that the national cancer plan came into being, including a commitment to complete the roll-out of the lung cancer screening programme by 2030. The screening programme is welcome and it is already delivering results. However, there is not enough clarity about how it will be funded going forward. Funding will be central to any success on the ground, so perhaps the Minister can address that issue when he responds to the debate. Equally, we need to support the devolved nations in implementing lung cancer screening to help them to catch up with England’s programme, which is already world leading. The devolved nations are lagging behind, and that must be addressed as the roll-out of the screening programme ramps up. Charities have also raised concerns that the current reorganisation of the national health service and the abolition of NHS England could disrupt the focus on the roll-out and even hinder its progress. Shockingly, 79% of cases of lung cancer are preventable, with the vast majority of all cases being the direct result of smoking. However, a decade of cuts to public health hobbled smoking cessation services, with massive implications for lung cancer rates. Despite the generational ban in the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, there are still plenty of smokers around and there will continue to be for years to come. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been advocating a return to 2015 spending levels on public health, which would boost smoking cessation services and help all those people who want to quit smoking to do so. We must also put an end to the tragedy of people losing their lives because their cancer treatment took too long to start. Nobody should be unable to receive treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them properly. The Government’s target in the national cancer plan to meet all cancer wait-time standards by 2029 is a good one. However, if they really want to hit that target, they must be far bolder. The national cancer plan includes a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines. However, that is not enough, especially for such a cost-effective and successful treatment. The Government should go further and provide funding for at least 200 more radiotherapy machines, which are needed to address the backlogs that exist. We Lib Dems are also proud that the national cancer plan incorporates our calls for every patient to have a designated specialist cancer nurse. However, the Government have yet to state how many more nurses they will provide to deliver that specialised care. Cancer nurses are already overworked and overstretched; if the Government aim to provide every patient with a designated cancer nurse, as we all want, they must be bolder in addressing the issues in the nursing workforce. In 2023, a national targeted screening programme for lung cancer in England was announced for people aged between 55 and 74 with a history of smoking. More than 1.5 million people have attended a lung health check and more than 9,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer; 76% of those were diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with just 30% of lung cancer sufferers outside the programme. Although the programme is targeted, it has proved to be a powerful tool, reducing by a quarter the overall gap in early cancer diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas, or from a gap of 8.2 percentage points in 2019 to 6.2 percentage points in the year to September 2025. In the national cancer plan, the Government committed to completing the roll-out of the targeted national lung cancer screening programme by 2030, and it is expected that this roll-out will offer screenings to more than 6 million people by 2035. It has the potential to diagnose 23,000 lung cancers earlier than otherwise would be the case. In addition to all that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer policy to reflect the fact that speed and quality of treatment are central to improvement of lung cancer survival rates. We would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 60 days of urgent referral. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase the total number of such machines, so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. We would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the capability of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. To make the UK a world leader in cancer research, we would also look to pass a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into those cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer. We would also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding gutted by the Trump Government, waiving burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers as a whole. Global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 per person for a five-year visa—that is £18,000 for a family of three. That is much more expensive that most of our competitor countries, where it is typically £200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is £900,000 a year, the equivalent of setting up two new cancer research labs every year. The fellowship scheme would also deliver more funding for salary and research costs for researchers by expanding the share of GDP going on research and development to 3.5%. That would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector generally. We would deliver that through a decade-long programme of public investment in research and development. I am moving towards my conclusion, Sir Alec, so I would like to tell the happy story of my constituent John, who has been the direct beneficiary of the early lung cancer screening programme. Without any obvious symptoms, in late January John received an invitation to participate in the Oxford University hospital early lung cancer detection screening programme, with an initial telephone appointment already planned for 10 February. Having established a sufficient risk score, a very low dose CT scan of the lungs was offered as part of the evaluation process just a week later. The scan revealed a nodule on John’s lung that required further tests. In March, referral was made to the respiratory early diagnosis service, with further tests and a PET-CT scan following shortly thereafter. On 20 March, the results were shared with John, following a multidisciplinary team discussion. A minimal solid component not suitable for biopsy had the appearance of adenocarcinoma and surgical referral was recommended. By the end of March, he had his pre-assessment appointment at John Radcliffe following an appointment with a thoracic surgeon at the Churchill hospital. On 17 April, an operation to remove 30% of his left lung—a 5.5-hour operation—took place. He was discharged home two days later, with a multidisciplinary team discussion at the end of May. On 2 June, the out-patient appointment for John at the Churchill hospital confirmed the removal of a 22-millimetre adenocarcinoma, with no tumour spread. It was therefore a huge success for John, for which he is enormously grateful, going from detection to successful treatment in six months. He will now be subject to a scan in six months and follow-up for five years. John’s story is a great example of the potential of this early cancer screening programme. We all hope that a further roll-out will be a success.

It is a pleasure to be here in an air-conditioned room while we continue this debate. It is poignant that it is so hot today, because we know how that can impact people with respiratory illnesses; we are probably talking about this issue at a very useful time. I too thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate. As has been said, lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in the UK, but it is also one of the cancers where early detection can make the biggest difference. I know that at first hand from my first year as a junior doctor working on a respiratory ward. It was eye-opening and harrowing, but also sometimes successful. I urge anyone who has the chance to visit a respiratory ward to see how important it is—and I believe that would make a difference to smoking rates. It is great that the hon. Member for Wokingham secured the debate, and great to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) secured the debate, because it is a good debate—it is a good day. This is really a success story. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), rightly told us John’s story; because of the screening that has been put in place, there will be plenty more Johns in the future, which is exactly what we want to hear. Often we talk about the problems, but this is a really good example of something positive that has come forward, and it all started under the previous Conservative Government. The roll-out of community diagnostic centres has fundamentally changed how we diagnose disease. There are now more than 170 centres across England, expanding capacity and bringing scans closer to where people live. Nationally, they have delivered millions upon millions of additional tests and have helped to ease pressure on acute services, with the clear aim of diagnosing conditions such as cancer faster and improving patient outcomes. Only this month I went to the first year anniversary of the opening of the CDC in Hinckley, a £24 million investment that has seen 59,000 patients through its door and is expanding. That means patients do not have to travel as far into Leicester or Nuneaton, and that they get their diagnoses more quickly and in a modern tech building. That is absolutely fantastic for my community, but I know that is replicated 170 times across the country. That matters because, when it comes to diseases like lung cancer, early diagnosis is everything. The sooner we can identify a problem, the sooner we can act, and crucially, the better the chances of survival. There is a real success story to talk about. The NHS lung cancer screening programme has its roots in work started by the Conservative Government, building on more than a decade of UK research and pilot studies. Following successful trials and local pilots, NHS England launched the targeted lung health check programme in 2019, focusing on high-risk groups in areas with the worst outcomes. That approach, using mobile scanners and proactive interventions, proved effective in detecting cancer earlier and reaching underserved communities. On the back of that success, and with a formal recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee in 2022, the Government announced a national roll-out in June 2023, committing to expand the screening across England and ultimately to reach full coverage by 2030. Since then, the programme has transitioned from pilots to a full national screening service and now forms a central part of efforts to improve cancer survival. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing on that trajectory. Why does this matter? The NHS lung cancer screening programme is now delivering at scale and showing clear results. About 2.8 million people have been invited, with 1.5 million checks completed and close to 1 million scans carried out. Some 6,000 to 7,000 cancers have been detected, roughly three quarters of which have been identified at stage 1 or 2, the earlier stages, in comparison with fewer than 30% before the programme started. About 1.4% of the scans lead to a diagnosis, demonstrating a targeted and efficient approach, and uptake stands at about 60%. In short, the programme is not only reaching those most at risk, but consistently shifting diagnosis to an earlier, more treatable stage and saving lives at a national level. As I say, we welcome the proposed expansion of the lung cancer screening programme, but it is vital that steps be taken to improve the uptake of screening and lung health checks. The fact that uptake stands at 60% means that 40% of those invited are not coming forward, and they are often the ones at highest risk. The question is why. Can the Minister set out what specific interventions the Government will introduce to increase uptake, particularly among the most deprived and hard-to-reach groups? To that end, can he confirm how the Government plan to deliver targets set in the national cancer plan, including the allocation of resources and funding for the lung cancer screening programme, over the next few years? As my new Scottish Conservative colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), may rightly point out, progress on lung cancer screening is uneven. England is now rolling out a full national programme; Wales has committed to an implementation, with the first invitations expected from 2027; Scotland remains at a pilot stage, with a national roll-out likely to be years away; and Northern Ireland is still in the early planning phases, without a programme in place. Given that variation, will the Minister set out what discussions are taking place across all four nations? Most importantly, what lessons are been learned from the English experience that can be actively shared to support a faster and more consistent delivery and roll-out across the UK? More broadly, this issue speaks to the need for a coherent approach to respiratory disease. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a clear attempt to take a more joined-up approach to the country’s biggest killers through a major condition strategy, which was announced in 2023. It explicitly placed chronic respiratory diseases, alongside cancer and cardiovascular disease, as one of six national priorities, recognising both its scale—it affects millions—and its contribution to avoidable ill health. A detailed framework, setting out a shift towards prevention, early diagnosis and management of those conditions, was published later that year. However, although the direction of travel was established and widely consulted on, the strategy never reached full publication or implementation, because there was a general election. This Government have taken a different route, with modern service frameworks. They have committed to developing modern service frameworks for frailty, dementia, mental health and cardiovascular disease—just a few areas—so I ask the Minister directly: will the Government develop a modern service framework for respiratory disease? If not, how do they intend to drive the same level of improvement for a condition that affects millions and underpins outcomes in lung cancer? We are all serious about improving cancer survival. Across this House, we all have that ambition, but we must match our ambition with delivery. Just like the 10-year plan, the delivery chapter is missing. I worry that the same could be argued for respiratory conditions. I just hope that I am proved wrong.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his continued and relentless advocacy for people affected by lung cancer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for their comprehensive and constructive contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the lead Minister on this policy area. There is a great deal of consensus across the House on this issue. We all want to see more lung cancers diagnosed earlier, more lives saved and fewer families affected by the devastating consequences of a late diagnosis. Lung cancer remains one of the greatest cancer challenges that we face. More than 42,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in England in 2023, and about 35,000 people lose their life to the disease across the United Kingdom each year. Lung cancer is also one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience higher rates of smoking, a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes. That is why tackling lung cancer is about not only improving cancer survival, but reducing some of the most persistent health inequalities in our society. For too long, outcomes for lung cancer have lagged behind those for many other cancers. The reason for that is well understood: too many people are diagnosed when their cancer is already at an advanced stage, limiting treatment options and reducing the likelihood of successful outcomes. That is why early diagnosis is absolutely critical. When lung cancer is diagnosed at stage 1, five-year survival is over 60%. By stage 4, it falls to just over 4%. Those figures alone demonstrate why finding lung cancer earlier remains one of the most effective ways of improving survival. The Government fully recognise the importance of this challenge. Improving outcomes for lung cancer and other less survivable cancers will be critical to achieving the Government’s ambitious objective that 75% of people diagnosed with cancer should survive for at least five years. That is why the national cancer plan places a strong focus on earlier diagnosis, reducing inequalities and ensuring that people with less survivable cancers receive the attention and support that they deserve.

This debate is about lung cancer, but I noticed a story in the paper today about an increase of between 5% and 10% in the number of people who now have breast cancer. Does the Minister agree that that underlines the issue that while there are many advances in cancer, and we welcome all of them, there is still a long way to go?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a lot more work to be done, and it is a priority for the Government: it is right up there in the 10-year plan and the priorities. As he said in his excellent speech, we need to mobilise every one of the shifts—from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention—in the battle against cancer, because it is a formidable enemy and we need every single weapon we can deploy to defeat it. We are determined to break the historical pattern of slow progress and finally give people with less survivable cancers the focus, urgency and outcomes that they deserve. That commitment is already being translated into action through the NHS lung cancer screening programme. The programme is designed to identify cancers at an earlier stage among those at highest risk, particularly people aged 55 to 74 with a history of smoking. Smoking remains responsible for about 72% of lung cancers, which is why a targeted approach is both clinically effective and evidence-based. The results so far have been extremely encouraging: more than 1.8 million people have attended a lung health check through the programme, and more than 11,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Most importantly, 77% of cancers detected through the programme have been diagnosed at stage 1 or stage 2; outside the programme, the equivalent figure is about 30%. That means that thousands of people are receiving a diagnosis earlier, accessing treatment sooner and benefiting from significantly improved prospects for survival. The programme is already demonstrating how earlier diagnosis can transform outcomes. Recent NHS England data shows a significant improvement in early-stage diagnosis in areas participating in the programme. That means more people are being diagnosed when treatment is most effective and when there is the greatest opportunity for curative intervention. The hon. Member for Wokingham and others have spoken about the importance of a truly national programme. I agree that every eligible person should have the opportunity to benefit from lung cancer screening. That is why the Government are committing more than £650 million to complete the roll-out of lung cancer screening across England by 2030. Through the national cancer plan, we have committed to ensuring that every eligible person in England receives their first invitation for a check by 2030, helping thousands more people to benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved outcomes. This investment reflects the Government’s confidence in the programme and the evidence supporting it. By 2035, lung cancer screening is expected to diagnose up to 50,000 cancers and identify at least 23,000 cancers at an earlier stage, helping thousands more people to receive potentially lifesaving treatment. This represents one of the most ambitious cancer screening programmes anywhere in the world.

I appreciate that this is not part of the Minister’s brief. The speed of the programme’s roll-out is fantastic, but there remains a concern that if 60% of people have taken it up, 40% have not done so, despite having had an offer that could have been given to someone else who wanted to go. Can the Department take that point away and work out what is being done to close that gap of more than a third? There is clearly a greater opportunity to get more people in and get them detected sooner.

The shadow Minister is right that promoting and maximising uptake is a crucial indicator of success for the programme. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to take that point away; I will discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, and we will get back to him in writing as soon as possible. Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of inequalities. We know that lung cancer does not affect all communities equally: it remains one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience significantly higher rates of smoking, a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes, which is why the lung cancer screening programme has prioritised roll-out in areas of greatest need. By targeting communities at highest risk first, the programme is helping to reduce long-standing inequalities in cancer outcomes and ensuring that those who are most likely to benefit from earlier diagnosis are reached as a priority. Reducing inequalities is therefore central to our approach. The national cancer plan includes a strong focus on reducing variation in cancer outcomes and ensuring that patients benefit from earlier diagnosis, regardless of where they live, their background or their circumstances. We are also conscious of the concerns that have been raised about access to services in rural and coastal communities. Through the continued expansion of diagnostic services, including community diagnostic centres, to which the shadow Minister rightly referred in his speech, we are bringing tests and scans closer to where people live and helping to improve access across the country. Alongside screening, we continue to invest in diagnostic capacity, treatment services, research and innovation. We are exploring pilots for self-referral chest X-rays, which could help to streamline diagnostic pathways and make it easier for people with concerning symptoms to access investigations more quickly. We are also supporting the adoption of innovative technologies that can improve diagnosis, reduce waiting times and help clinicians to identify cancers earlier. Alongside all our efforts to catch and treat cancer earlier, through our 10-year plan for England we have also committed to shift from sickness to prevention. We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the UK. It claims around 80,000 lives a year, puts huge pressure on our NHS and costs taxpayers billions. It causes one in four of all cancer deaths in England, including from lung cancer, and kills up to two thirds of long-term smokers. It costs health and care services £3 billion a year—resources that could be freed up to deliver millions more appointments, scans and operations. The cost of smoking to our economy is even greater, with £18.6 billion lost in productivity every year and with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick. That is why the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage and putting us on track towards a smoke-free generation. Over the next 50 years, that smoke-free generation will save tens of thousands of lives and avoid up to 13,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease. Although survival rates for lung cancer have improved significantly over recent years, we recognise that there is still much more to do. The Government are determined to ensure that England becomes a world leader in cancer survival, and that patients benefit from earlier diagnosis and better outcomes, regardless of where they live. I again thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for securing this vital debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. Through the continued roll-out of lung cancer screening, investment in diagnostic and treatment capacity, support for research and innovation, and the commitment set out in the national cancer plan, we are taking decisive action to diagnose more cancers earlier, improve survival and reduce the number of lives lost to lung cancer. Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position today.

I would just like to mention a few of the things that hon. Members have spoken about. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to pay tribute to the Government for their work on lung cancer screening. That is an outstanding success, but screening still needs more support from the Government because, as he says, screening saves lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talked about lung cancer being horrific and deadly, and he spoke about his constituent John, who probably thought, when he got his diagnosis, “This is going to be horrific and deadly for me.” Because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him, so that is really good. My hon. Friend also talked about the speed and quality of treatment, and how important it is that we are quick with our diagnoses, that we are quick with our treatment and that our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is absolutely right that early detection is crucial in lung cancer treatment, as he knows from being a junior doctor once upon a time. He is also right to say that the origin of the screening programme was under the Conservatives in 2023, and he is right to join other Members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we asked him. I know that he is here on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is, I know, a real champion for improving cancer care in this country. I think it is great that the Government are committing £650 million for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2030, but what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is the Minister able to make a commitment that the Department will speak to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England, or does he need to speak to the Under-Secretary of State? We did not get a guarantee that lung cancer—

I just want to briefly put on the record that I will discuss that with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and we will write to the hon. Gentleman with an update on the work we are doing across the regional Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thank you for your intervention, Minister, and your clarification. But you did not need to intervene because I am sure—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for quite a while now and knows that I am not responsible for anything. Please address the Minister through the Chair.

I apologise, Sir Alec. The Minister did not need to intervene. I am sure he will take that message back to his colleague. What we would like to see, which was not mentioned in the Minister’s speech, is a guarantee that lung cancer screening funding will be ringfenced and used only for lung cancer screening. There was no comment on the changes in the integrated care boards and NHS England or on what safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight during the organisational changes. I am sure the Minister and other Ministers know that is a big concern for a lot of charities. There was no mention of expanding radiology. A lot of people who talk about cancer, including Members of Parliament and cancer charities, know that there has to be a big expansion of radiography sooner rather than later. Finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting, Sir Alec, and for pulling me up on my mistake. I shall endeavour to do better next time. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

Sitting suspended.