Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the analysis by Cancer Research UK projecting a £1 billion
funding gap for cancer research.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
The Government remain fully committed to tackling cancer by
investing in cutting-edge cancer research. We invested almost
£122 million into cancer research in 2022-23 via the National
Institute for Health and Care Research, while UK Research and
Innovation invests around £200 million annually. We work closely
with research funders, industry, the NHS and charities to drive
earlier diagnosis and improved therapies. We are confident that
the Government’s unwavering commitment will lead to continued
improvements for cancer patients.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly in relation
to his final comment about long-term investment. He will be aware
that around 62% of all publicly funded research on cancer comes
from the charitable sector. The last few years have been
incredibly tough for the sector in raising money. As an example,
over the past five years Cancer Research UK has seen a 19% drop
in real terms in the amount it can invest in cancer research. It
argues that we are in danger of losing about £1 billion of
investment into cancer research over the next ten years, and has
called for a commission on sustainable biomedical research task
force to look at how government, the charitable sector and other
funders can collectively fill that gap. Are the Government
sympathetic to that?
(Con)
Yes, entirely, and I thank the noble Lord for raising this very
important issue. I pay tribute to the very important and good
work done by Cancer Research UK. If its analysis—I am familiar
with its basic thrust—has a flaw, it is that it makes an
assumption about an ongoing linear link between the number of
cancer sufferers over the year and direct government and charity
sector support. This assumption neglects to bring in, first, the
close work done between the Government, businesses—through
business co-funding—and others, and, secondly, the growing,
extensive, important research that is relevant to cancer but not
specifically associated with it. In particular, many of us are
familiar with the work done on radiology in AI. It is not
cancer-specific but is certainly likely to help the cause of
improving cancer outcomes.
(CB)
My Lords, according to Cancer Research UK, the US Government
spend five times as much per citizen on cancer research as the UK
Government. Why do the Government spend so much less?
(Con)
I am not familiar with this analysis, but it is very difficult to
understand exactly how much is spent on cancer research, for the
reason I gave earlier: so much cancer research is in areas
adjacent or relevant to cancer without being specifically tagged
as “cancer research”. For instance, in October 2023 the Prime
Minister announced a new £100 million fund for the AI life
sciences accelerator mission, which will have beneficial outcomes
on cancer but is not tagged directly to cancer.
(LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister receives regular representations
from potential investors in medical research in the UK about what
they need from the Department of Health and Social Care. Will he
share with the House, and with his neighbour on the Front Bench,
their key asks from the UK medical system and how he ensures a
cross-government approach to entice in the maximum amount of
investment?
(Con)
Indeed: it is so important to have not only a cross-government
approach but a cross-sectoral approach. The Government work
closely with academic, industry, charitable and other
stakeholders. The crux of this is the healthcare missions of the
Office for Life Sciences. The OLS cancer mission aims to show
leadership in oncology innovation by developing further the
approach first successfully used in the Vaccine Taskforce. Among
other things, it has implemented the UK cancer research strategy
forum, which brings together bodies of all kinds that are active
in cancer research to ensure that they are effectively
co-ordinated in today’s research and in future directions.
(Lab)
My Lords, UK citizens willingly volunteer to allow excellent
initiatives such as UK Biobank, Genomics England and Our Future
Health to generate databases of health data that are excellent
for cancer research. These databases are a sovereign UK asset
funded by taxpayers, yet we allow the IP to leak abroad without
any meaningful contribution to Treasury coffers. When will the
Government implement an effective commercialisation policy to
ensure that this leakage of wealth is stopped and directed to
help fund cancer research?
(Con)
I cannot comment directly on leakage of either information or
wealth. I noted with great interest the latest report of the
Institute that was publicised
over the weekend, which argued that we should put our healthcare
data on a commercial setting for this purpose. I am not familiar
with any individual allegation of leakage or undue movement of
data out of the country, but I am willing to look into it and
take it up with ministerial colleagues.
(CB)
I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. One of the
most important international research partnerships in cancer
science is the Cancer Grand Challenges, which bring together
CRUK, the US Government, the French Government, the Dutch and the
Spanish, but not yet the British Government. I invite the
Minister to consider joining the club and using the March Budget
as an opportunity to stump up the membership fees.
(Con)
I once again pay tribute to Cancer Research UK. It is a
tremendous organisation doing great work. I will look into the
scheme the noble Lord brings up and take it up with ministerial
colleagues.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, will know, Cancer
Research reported in its 2023 researcher survey that while 98% of
respondents said that collaboration with EU-based scientists is
important, 79% said that since Brexit it had been harder to begin
new collaborations with EU-based researchers and scientists. What
steps are the Government taking to prioritise collaboration
between the EU and the UK in this area, especially with
compatibility with the EU clinical trials regulatory
framework?
(Con)
As we have just rejoined the Horizon programme as an associate, I
am pleased to say that our collaboration with friends and
colleagues in the EU will pick up considerably. I very much look
forward to answering a Question in this House tomorrow on that
exact subject.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Lord O’Shaughnessy review concluded that the UK is
falling behind its peers in the internationally competitive
marketplace for commercial clinical trials. Many in the research
and entrepreneurial community are concerned that our most
innovative researchers are going abroad. What is being done to
persuade them to stay in this country?
(Con)
The Government and academic institutions countrywide are very
focused on making sure that the country remains an attractive
place to conduct research. We have four of the world’s top 10
universities in this country—a significant research base. We
believe and hope that we are an outstanding place to come to live
and work as a researcher. There is no doubt that we will need a
significant influx of researchers if we are to meet our
scientific ambitions as a nation. We continue to monitor our
generous points-based immigration scheme to make sure that we can
continue to attract the brightest and best.
(CB)
My Lords, much of the research, including cancer research, is
carried out by universities. For that, the university has to
spend money to build up infrastructure. That money mainly comes
from the quality-related research or QR funding and the CRSF
funding, the charity research support fund, both of which have
declined, particularly as charity research funding increases and
the government support does not. Is it the Government’s intention
to increase QR funding in line with inflation and the CRSF?
(Con)
It is certainly the Government’s intention to maximise the
results of conducting cancer research in universities and
elsewhere. I think particularly that we do not give enough
emphasis to our collaborations with business; in that respect I
point to our work with BioNTech, which aims to provide 10,000
patients with immunotherapies by 2030, or the NHS-Galleri trial.
As to the specific instance of the QR increase, I will happily
write to the noble Lord.
