The noble Lord makes an important point about what I would call unnecessary obstacles to innovation and technology—something which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also raised. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that engagement with industry is extensive.

We seek to identify blocks to improving healthcare provision in this country so that we can take the necessary steps. I agree that there are obstacles. We will continue to identify them—working with industry, which is crucial—and to seek to fix them.

My Lords, the Minister mentions the amount of money being spent on cancer research, but it is a small proportion compared with what the life sciences actually earn in Britain through patent and basic research. As UKRI recently pointed out, £3.7 billion has been raised as a result.

Does the Minister agree that the Government should perhaps consider reinvesting some more of that money into much-needed basic research, which is currently regarded as being underfunded, with very many projects not being funded as they should be?

As my noble friend is aware, the NIHR very much welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including all cancers. As with other government funders of health research, it does not allocate funding for specific disease areas.

My noble friend is well aware that applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition—in other words, to make awards on the basis of the importance of the research to patients and on value for money. I appreciate his observation about investment.

It is an area to which we are committed and will continue to be.

My Lords, a year ago this very afternoon, this very moment, I was in a surgery having a radical prostatectomy. I pay tribute to Professor Vasdev and his amazing team at Lister Hospital for the exceptional treatment I received. He is one of many fabulous people working in our NHS.

The discrepancies, though, of diagnosis and treatment are stark in different parts of the country. Having worked in some of the more disadvantaged areas in the past, I am acutely aware of those.

What are His Majesty’s Government’s going to do, as the plan is developed, to ensure that we look at the religious, social and ethnic barriers which are stopping groups coming forward to receive diagnosis and treatment?

Will they particularly focus on how we can address these to try to support those in the most disadvantaged parts of our country?

My Lords, the fact is that our best cancer services deliver as good a result as any in the world; they are second to none. We do not need to focus on what might happen in the future, with the promise of AI, etcetera.

It may promise utopia, but we need the same degree of care as our best delivery provided universally to every cancer patient in our health service. That is what I hope the cancer plan will focus on, and not get carried away by a future that may look promising and bright but which may not deliver.

I am delighted that there will be a separate children’s cancer plan, because that is needed. I hope that, in the meantime, it will stop any discussion about shutting down about our best children’s cancer hospital, for whatever reasons—which I think might be political.

I want to clarify that while the cancer plan is not specifically aimed at children and young people, such evidence will be welcomed. Also, the taskforce will be relaunched this year, alongside the national cancer plan.

As we do with adults, equally, we want to identify ways to improve outcomes and patient experience. I hear the noble Lord’s point about AI. It is not a utopia, but it is a tool in the box that we would absolutely be right to look at.

I am also struck by how AI is not something separate from human beings; it is human beings who guide it, and it has great potential. On the noble Lord’s point about tackling inequalities in access, which was also made by the right reverend Prelate, he is absolutely right.

It is not acceptable that some people, because of where they live or who they are, are not accessing care. This is a constant issue for us, and we continue to tackle it.

My Lords, I have to start by declaring an interest. I lost my wife of 55 years in April last year due to breast cancer. I have a simple question for the Minister: when, oh when, are we going to find a cure for this dreadful disease?

My condolences to the noble Lord; I am sorry to hear of the loss of his dear wife. I am afraid I cannot say when there will be a cure, but I can reassure him, as I have said previously, about the importance of research and research expenditure.

We continue to make great strides, and we will continue on that trajectory.

I wish my noble friend well with his treatment. Screening for prostate cancer is not currently recommended in the UK because of the inaccuracy of the current best test available, which is the PSA.

The advice we are given is that the PSA-based screening programme could harm men, as some could be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their life; equally, some cancers may be missed.

That is why we are investing £16 million towards the Prostate Cancer UK-led TRANSFORM programme, which is the name of the screening trial.

On health inequalities, as I mentioned earlier, the trial is seeking to find better ways to detect prostate cancer, which is necessary, and to address the health inequalities.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned screening for lung cancer, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the progress made in recent years.

Can she confirm whether the Government now commit to taking forward the plans for earlier screening of lung cancer, as recommended by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation?

The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation does excellent work and keeps our minds very focused. The point raised by the noble Baroness will be considered as part of the cancer plan.

My Lords, the Cancer Research UK website clearly says: “Drinking less alcohol can prevent” at least seven types of cancer. The Statement refers to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Will the Government seriously consider a minimum unit price for alcohol to further reduce cancers across the board, particularly throat and bowel cancers?

I cannot give that specific commitment to the noble Baroness. However, as I know your Lordships’ House is aware, one of the three major shifts we seek through the 10-year plan—this is very relevant to the noble Baroness’s point—is from sickness to prevention.

Improved health absolutely is preventive for a number of conditions, including cancer. We need to get that message across, as well as supporting people to make improvements to their health.

I am glad to hear the noble Baroness making statements about the quality of care she continues to receive, and I wish her well. She makes a good point about screening; some 15 million people are invited to screenings and about 10 million take them up.

For bowel cancer screening, we have reduced the age to 50 to incorporate more people. That is very welcome, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness said: the tests that are painful or embarrassing all have to be dealt with.

As part of the review of screening programmes, there is a constant, repeated look at how communications can be improved to target those who need the screening, and to try to be more creative.

I refer again to the community diagnostic centres, which are where people need them to be and are less worrying than, for example, going to a hospital.

I take the point about painful screenings, but, for us, it is also important to talk about the alternative, because without that screening I am afraid that the outcomes will be far worse.

My Lords, I am grateful to the health service for saving me. Come this Friday, it will be six months since I was in the Royal Marsden—last summer, on my holiday—having my bladder and prostate removed. Here I am now, surviving.

I had to struggle today to get into Parliament; farmers are protesting about money that needs to be raised to fund the NHS. I return to the point about honesty that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised at the beginning.

You can have all the plans under the sun, but if you do not have the money or the will—and the plans to raise the money—you will not deliver them.

I believe there is a question missing at the end of this invitation on the consultation: “Could you please suggest some ideas on how to raise the additional funds required to deliver these plans?” There are alternatives to those that we currently use.

It is beholden on both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to be giving some attention to suggestions—which they would support—whereby we would raise additional money to fund the NHS, as our Government are endeavouring to do at the moment.

I would like the Minister to consider exploring a variety of options: how we might be more flexible in raising funds for the NHS, get the private sector more involved in new experimentation that needs to take place, and get the wider public more involved—perhaps by share interest in PPPs to fund particular operations and exercises; say, for a hospital such as the Chelsea and Westminster.

Ask all the hospitals around the country what they would like to have. Could they involve their people? Could they involve the private sector? Could we explore a new model? It will not be done overnight but it needs to be done.

I am glad that my noble friend is in the health that he is. I am sure that those who have supported him will appreciate his thanks and ours. The considerations my noble friend raises are very much part of the considerations of the national cancer plan and the 10-year plan.

With respect to funding, the allocation to healthcare in the recent Budget has allowed us to take steps to arrest a continuing decline and to fix the foundations. The fact is we are spending more and we are getting less. We have to do things differently.

That will mean not just looking at money but reforming care, using solutions such as technology and AI to go further still.

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I warmly welcome the national cancer plan. The Minister will be aware that there still is an unacceptable wait time of 62 days.

Will she use her good offices to ensure that there is early referral from GPs and that more funding is made available—for this purpose and longer appointments with GPs—if that is needed to make the case for earlier diagnosis and referral?

I say to the noble Baroness that the overall trend for cancer performance is improving but it still needs to improve further. We will take all the necessary steps.

The planning guidance set stretching targets for cancer, which will see around 100,000 more people every year having cancer confirmed—or ruled out—within 28 days, and about 17,000 more people beginning treatment within two months of diagnosis.

The key to all of this has to be early diagnosis and treatment and ensuring that people do not get missed out, as we have discussed earlier. The trajectory is in the right direction, but they are small steps and we need to ratchet it up.