| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 637—continued
2.29 pm
Mr. Pound: With the leave of the House, I thank all those who have contributed to this useful debate, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills.)
Disabled People (Duties of Public Authorities) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.29 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to have so much time to speak to this important Bill, which has support from the three main political parties, as well as from disability organisations and the Disability Rights Commission. It will add to disability law, ensuring that people with disabilities are included, rather than excluded, particularly by those in the public—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 May.
Remaining Private Member's Bill
GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 4 April.
Prostate Cancer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): It is always a pleasure to address a packed House of Commons. Today, however, I am simply grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of prostate cancer in prostate cancer awareness week.
Recently, 18 charities with specialist expertise in this field came together to launch the prostate cancer charter for action. I congratulate them on their initiative in doing so. For my own purposes in the context of this debate, I am appreciative, above all, of the briefing that I have received. I have been advised on this subject in detail by the chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, Mr. John Neate, and by other experts in the field. Specifically, I have had the benefit of the professional assistance of Mike Birtwistle and Nick Laitner. I am grateful to them both.
This is an increasingly important initiative to increase awareness of, and effective action to tackle, prostate cancer. It might help if I start by establishing the context in which the debate takes place. Interest in the subject in the House was reflected in the last parliamentary Session in 35 questions to Ministers. There have been an additional 11 such questions in this Session. More particularly, four early-day motions have been tabled respectively by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). They attracted respectively 26, 114, 146 and 59 signatures. Members on both sides of the House have a legitimate concern to promote greater understanding of, and treatment for, this terrible disease.
Prostate cancer is rapidly becoming the biggest curse for men and particularly, although not exclusively, for older men. The most common cancer among men is lung cancer, but prostate cancer is catching up. Many people believe that it will soon overtake lung cancer.
How many people are sufferers? We know that 25,000 people are now diagnosed in the United Kingdom each year as suffering from this horrific and often fatal disease. Some 10,000 men die each year from the disease, and a man has a one in 13 lifetime chance of suffering from it. In my area of the vale of Aylesbury, within which the Buckingham constituency falls, the incidence of prostate cancer is 29 per cent. higher than for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Moreover, it is not simply a phenomenon of the incidence of the disease, but of the fatalities that flow from it. We know that, over a long period in this country, survival rates have been significantly poorer than elsewhere in the European Union. After five years from diagnosis, only 44.3 per cent. of men in the United Kingdom are still alive by comparison with the average in the European Union of approximately 55.7 per cent.
In the light of those alarming statistics, it is especially worrying that a third of men do not know what the prostate is. Given those statistics, there is a great deal of justifiable interest in, and anxiety about, the subject in the House.
I congratulate the Government on the announcement of the formation of the prostate cancer advisory group, a welcome initiative on which they have rightly been congratulated by all the interested parties in the field. If the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), when responding to the debate, can tell me and others interested in the subject something about the composition of that group and its intended terms of reference, that would be helpful. My understanding is that it will be chaired by the distinguished specialist, Professor Mike Richards, and its purpose is to marshal all the resources and expertise of what the Government call the stakeholders in the field to ensure that the approach to the subject in future is more effective than it may have been in the past.
The Minister will be aware that the focus of the Prostate Cancer Charity's charter for action is action on a number of fronts. First, we need action on transparency. We require an interim report on the Government's success or otherwise in fulfilling the targets that they have set. For example, in the recruitment of urologists, we need to know how we are doing and what future plans are. People would be interested to learn from the Minister to what extent there has been compliance with the stated target from December 2000 onwards of ensuring that anyone suspected by his GP of suffering from prostate cancer has the opportunity of an out-patient appointment with a specialist within two weeks. Action on transparency is therefore the first requirement that I put to the Minister on behalf of the charities involved, and on which I would be interested to hear her response.
Secondly, we need action on public awareness in this field. The charities are anxious that a health education campaign should be launched no later than autumn this year. We need a male-friendly, media-oriented, effective public relations and promotional initiative that focuses on different features of this important debate. It should focus on the function of the prostate—that, after all, is what we are discussing first and foremost, and from it everything else follows. That campaign needs to challenge the notion of the inevitability of the increased incidence of the disease. Thirdly, there is a requirement to highlight risk factors, whether behavioural or inherited, which are likely to result in the disease and its detection. Fourthly, there is a terribly important requirement to describe the role of the PSA test—the prostate-specific antigen test.
A lot of people think that there should be a national screening programme. Equally, most of the major charities in the field and people with expertise think that there should not be one at this stage because the test is unreliable. However, we need to put the information on the record and tell sufferers and people who think that they may be sufferers, "These are your options. This is the information that should be available to you." Public awareness is critical, and I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government launched their prostate cancer programme in September 2000 they made a firm commitment to a public information campaign. People expect them to deliver on that commitment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.
Fourthly, we need action on patient care. That means information for patients, multidisciplinary working and comparing different treatments for this grim disease. There seem to be three main methods of tackling it. One
is active monitoring, the second is radiotherapy, and the third is surgery. If memory serves me correctly—and if I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will advise me this afternoon—the Government rightly placed an important focus on clinical trials. Quite properly, they want to be guided by the evidence before spending further public resources.The Government committed £13 million, I believe, to a clinical trial based in nine separate locations. People who have raised the subject with me in my constituency, either one-to-one or via correspondence, are keen to know the outcome of that trial. Can we have some sort of progress report on it? What conclusions from the study have Ministers so far drawn? We also need an audited education programme for the benefit of primary care providers. That is all part of the package of patient care assistance in respect of which action is needed.
Fourthly, we need action on resources. It is a commonplace for Members of Parliament to call for additional resources in respect of particular problems or areas of Government activity. I am, in a sense, no exception today, though in a good cause. It is worthwhile to stress that I am not calling for the willy-nilly expenditure of resources, which might not yield much of a result. There should be a targeted programme of investment in three areas.
First, there can be no doubt that we need an increase in the number of trained pathologists to cater to the increased demand for treatment that the higher incidence of the disease has brought about. Any information that the hon. Lady can give me today as to what the Government are doing in that regard and what they propose to do in the future would be much appreciated. Secondly, we need more specialist cancer nurses who have a particular expertise in prostate cancer, both for the benefit of the sufferers themselves, and for the purpose of assisting at primary care level.
Thirdly, we need increased resources for the purpose of research into how we can more effectively detect the disease, research into the relative aggressiveness or otherwise of that disease, and research into the respective merits of the different forms of treatment. We need to recognise that there can be individually tailored programmes of treatment, and that we should not take a holistic view and say that one form of treatment is right for everybody. Investment targeted to the ends that I have outlined would be greatly welcomed. That requires, as somebody might have said, action this day.
Finally, we need action on partnership. I recognise that no one can do it all on his or her own. It is not a matter only for the Government. It is not a matter only for the national health service professionals. It is not a matter only for the voluntary sector, magnificent accumulated expertise and commitment though that sector can boast. It is a matter for all three. We need a Government commitment. We also need specialist expertise from the national health service, and we will require the integrated role of the voluntary sector. We need to ensure that all those players come together with a common purpose and a common determination to achieve it.
Prostate cancer is one of the most important subjects that a Member of Parliament could identify and address, so far as the male population of this country is concerned. There has been an enormous focus on cancer
as a whole, and that is right and proper. There has, in particular, been a strong focus on breast cancer. I make it clear that I in no way criticise or cavil at that. A great deal more probably still needs to be done in relation to that important subject. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which prostate cancer has not, over the years, under Governments of both colours, received the attention or the determined application of resources that are required.The Government are doing good and valuable work in this area. The Minister will be aware that I have raised the issue on a wholly non-partisan basis. All I am concerned about is improving the detection and treatment of and recovery rates from this ghastly disease. I have said my piece and I look forward to hearing that of the Minister.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |