Questions today in the House of Lords on Brain Tumour Research
Asked by
Lord O’Shaughnessy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they are
providing for research into therapies and treatments for people
with brain tumours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
My Lords, in 2018, the Government announced funding of £40
million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the
Brain Cancer
Mission, through the NIHR. We are relying on researchers to
submit high-quality research proposals in this very difficult
area. To encourage such applications, in April 2018 we released
an NIHR highlight notice on brain tumour research asking research
teams to submit collaborative applications, building on recent
initiatives and investments.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Nearly three
years ago, this House was witness to one of the most courageous
and moving speeches in its long history when argued for
better support for people who, sadly, like her, die from rare
cancers. We have made progress since then; fluorescent dye to aid
surgical accuracy has been rolled out and new specialist brain
cancer centres have been set up across the NHS. However, funding
for research is lagging. Of that £40 million promised by the
NIHR, only £6 million has been allocated. Can my noble friend
tell the House what the department is doing to address this issue
and is he prepared to meet with representatives of the brain
cancer research charities in order to think of a way forward?
(Con)
My Lords, the memory of Baroness has had a huge
impact in this area. I remember well her testimony from these
Benches and the mood of the House then. It was an extremely
moving and impactful occasion and we remember her very fondly
indeed.
My noble friend is entirely right that it is extremely
frustrating that not more of this money has been spent. You will
not catch me saying that very often at the Dispatch Box, but in
this case, it is true. Managing the pipeline of research
submissions through the process to the NIHR is a challenge. The
NIHR has very high standards for the allocation of research
grants and to date, it has struggled to find the number and
quality of grants to support. That is why we will put a renewed
focus on supporting the drafting of better grants, and I would be
pleased to meet with the charities recommended by my noble friend
in order to discuss the ways we can do that.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have been told that only 5% of national spend on
cancer research is devoted to brain tumour research. Let us
consider the collaborative work being undertaken on precision
medicine by the University of Bristol and Queen’s University
Belfast. What additional funding could be dedicated to this area,
which provides individualised treatments to ensure better patient
outcomes?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right that precision medicine
offers an enormous and powerful opportunity for us to tackle
cancers. Brain cancers are particularly difficult to tackle,
especially in adults, and we are daunted by the struggle to make
further progress in this area. Since April 2018, we have spent
£5.7 million on directly funded brain tumour research, but that
is not enough and we would like to spend more. I am open to
recommendations on how the money could be spent.
(Con) [V]
My Lords, brain tumours kill more children and adults under the
age of 40 than any other cancer, and I am grateful to hear my
noble friend’s acknowledgement that research funding is not yet
enough. Does he agree with the proposal to change the system so
that if a site-specific brain tumour grant is deemed fundable by
a panel, it will automatically be funded during a highlighted
brain tumour funding round such as the one announced last month?
(Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for a briefing given by
Professor Richard Gilbertson earlier today on the specific
question raised by my noble friend, which is grants for brain
tumours in children. The NIHR system is a gold standard that is
envied by the world and does not necessarily need to be broken
and restarted. However, the point made by my noble friend is a
good one and we are looking at ways of ensuring that more and
better recommendations for grants go into the system in the first
place so that, basically, we can spend the money more quickly.
(CB)
[V]
My Lords, on 6 November this year, the Government spoke of
developing quality research and funding through a successful
partnership and sustainable alignment with the charity sector.
When can we expect to see some results from that initiative, with
work and funding to achieve those goals?
(Con)
My Lords, the work of the charity sector in medical research is
absolutely fundamental to national progress in this area.
However, it too has been hit incredibly hard by Covid. We are
having a number of dialogues with medical research sector
representatives on how we can help. There will need to be a
short, medium and long-term approach to getting back to where we
were at the beginning of the year. How we bridge the current
funding gap is a source of enormous concern to the department and
the NHS. I cannot guarantee that we can necessarily embark on
exactly the same framework that we envisaged at the beginning of
the year, but I can reassure the noble Lord that we are very
committed to the research community and we engage with it
regularly on how we can help.
(Lab)
My Lords, several references have been made to our late and
much-loved colleague , who I was
proud to call a friend. Was she not prescient when in her last
speech to this Chamber she said:
“I am not afraid. I am fearful that this new and important
approach”—
referring to research—
“may be put into the “too difficult” box”. [Official Report,
25/1/18; col. 1170]
When the Minister tells us in all sincerity that it is just too
difficult to spend the £40 million that was promised, will he at
least give this House an assurance that after this discussion he
will take a personal and direct oversight of this matter, because
it would be a great tragedy if those words of proved to be
correct in the long run?
(Con)
I hear the noble Lord’s words loud and clear. I reassure him that
the good news is that left behind her
in the Brain Cancer
Mission an incredibly effective organisation that is holding the
feet of Ministers firmly to the fire—not least through my noble
friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is on my case in a very big way.
I recognise that this is one of the tricky scientific challenges
of our age. We have struggled to tackle adult brain tumours for a
very long time. There has to be investment in the basic science
around them, in the techniques, such as the very focused
radiology, and in provable therapeutics that work in the field.
This is not going to happen overnight, but I reassure the noble
Lord that we are committed to finding a solution.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, referred to Baroness
Jowell’s final speech, when she told us not to give up fighting
this pernicious cancer. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, the
then Minister, gave the assurance that the Government would not
cease support for research into new treatments. Can the Minister
confirm how many more research programmes into brain tumour
treatments and therapies have been funded by NIHR since then? Is
he confident that enough is being done?
My Lords, I have a table of all the brain tumour research
projects that we have backed over the last 10 years and I would
be very glad to share it with the noble Baroness in
correspondence. The short answer is, not enough. I would like
there to be more grants and of higher value, but I recognise the
challenge. When I speak to the scientists—even Richard
Gilbertson, who is a very measured practitioner in this area—they
recognise that more work needs to be done at an earlier stage to
ensure that they are the kinds of projects that the NIHR system
can back. We need to have a conversation about how we can
encourage the early-stage science and the creative drafting of
fresh ideas for that pipeline. That is something that I am very
keen to get on with and have a dialogue about.
(Con)
I, too, was privileged to be present when spoke. In
1988, a 27 year-old man whose wife was eight months pregnant and
who had just completed the London Marathon, was told by a
neurologist that he had a brain tumour and six months to live. My
Lords, that young man was me. I thank God and the doctors and
nurses at the Royal Free Hospital that I am here to tell this
story.
What is being done to educate and work with families and loved
ones, who take the brunt of providing support for the patient and
who most likely have no medical knowledge? While the Minister
will be aware that not all brain tumours are cancerous, can he
explain the Government’s commitment to fighting this niche but
deadly form of cancer?
My Lords, on behalf of everyone, I thank my noble friend for that
powerful personal testimony. I am sure there will be many others
in the Chamber or listening who have known or lived through some
association with brain cancer or cancer of some kind. It is
extremely gratifying that in many areas of cancer we have made
enormous progress—to the extent that it is a completely treatable
disease in many respects—but in the area of brain cancer, that is
not true. That is not good enough and we are working on trying to
find a solution. Money has been spent, but not enough. We need
more focus on this.
On my noble friend’s point on supporting families, that is
something that trusts work on, but it is left to the charities
and support organisations to do. In all areas of illness, that is
something where perhaps we could or should be doing more and I
completely take on board his comments.
