Tag: Chris Evans

  • Chris Evans – 2026 Speech on Tissue Freezing for Advanced Brain Cancer Treatment

    Chris Evans – 2026 Speech on Tissue Freezing for Advanced Brain Cancer Treatment

    The speech made by Chris Evans, the Labour MP for Caerphilly, in Westminster Hall on 7 January 2026.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered patient access to tissue freezing for advanced brain cancer treatment, diagnostics and research.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western—you look remarkably like the man I had breakfast with 45 minutes ago.

    I am pleased that this topic is getting the attention it deserves, and I am grateful to open this important debate, especially ahead of Less Survivable Cancers Awareness Week, which begins on 13 January. I must confess I knew relatively little about the effects of brain cancer until I met my constituent, Ellie James. Ellie has travelled from Wales today and is in the Gallery. I admire how tirelessly she has campaigned in memory of her late husband, Owain, who has brought us all here today.

    Owain passed away from glioblastoma, the most common type of malignant brain tumour in adults, in June 2024. He was just 34 years of age. Since then Ellie has been campaigning for what she calls Owain’s law to be implemented in this country. Owain was young, fit and healthy, and he had his whole life ahead of him. He leaves behind a family, including a young daughter. Owain’s story highlights the importance of informed consent from patients and their families regarding treatment and the storage of their brain tissue.

    Owain was diagnosed with a brain tumour in September 2022. Half of Owain’s 14 cm tumour was surgically removed, but only 1 cm of the removed tissue was stored fresh or flash frozen. The 1 cm was used to treat Owain with a form of immunotherapy treatment that requires the patient’s frozen tissue. Owain received three rounds of the vaccine before the frozen tissue ran out, at which point further surgery was not considered possible. The remaining 6 cm of tissue was stored in paraffin, making it unsuitable for additional vaccines.

    Owain died a few months later, despite his cancer showing signs of regression during the treatment. If all the removed tissue had been fresh frozen, around 30 vaccines could have been created. If Owain and his family had been more informed about the practices surrounding brain tissue freezing and storage, and if the hospital had chosen the flash-freezing method for all the removed tissue instead of keeping it in paraffin, Owain could still be with us. His story is truly devastating, but what most stood out to me was that there was a real, achievable potential to extend, if not save, his life.

    The amount of grief that Ellie and Owain’s family face must be tremendous and unimaginable. However, out of grief great change can take place, and I pay tribute to Ellie for her determination to turn her unimaginable grief into something positive that can help others. There is currently no consistent national guidance or sufficient infrastructure to ensure that brain tumour tissue removed during surgery can be stored in the fresh frozen state required for advanced therapies such as immunotherapy and cancer research. It is fundamentally wrong that Owain and his family learned of the small proportion of tissue initially frozen only once the vaccines ran out. I am sure they are not the only people that that will have happened to.

    For every patient diagnosed with a less survivable cancer, the average one-year survival rate is 42%. That is compared with a one-year survival rate of 70% for all cancers. Those statistics need to improve. There are procedures surrounding brain tissue freezing that can be changed, which would have an undeniably positive impact on survival rates. There are already groups doing research and drawing attention to what can be done to improve outcomes for people with cancer, such as the all-party parliamentary group on the less survivable cancers. There are also charities such as Cancer Research UK and Macmillan that conduct valuable research and support cancer patients and their families. Again, I pay tribute to them.

    There are, however, specific recommendations that I would like to mention, which link specifically to Owain and many others who face similar situations. The NHS needs an appropriate number of medical freezers to store fresh frozen tissue. In many cases, there is not enough freezer space to facilitate this type of brain tissue freezing. That must change. That long-term investment would save lives.

    Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)

    Brain cancer is one of the deadliest cancers, and it disproportionately affects young adults: it is the big cancer killer of people under 40. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this proposal not only would save lives at a relatively small cost but has an economic benefit? The Brain Tumour Charity points out that most people diagnosed have to give up work, and so do their carers: 70% of carers also have to give up work to look after those afflicted. There is an economic benefit to doing this, at a relatively low cost, and of course it would save lives.

    Chris Evans

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have to remember that a cancer diagnosis affects not just the person, but their family and loved ones. A lot of people have to leave work to care for those people, and they have to deal with the emotional impact too. Her economic point is absolutely right. The wider point is that we lead the world in life sciences. If we did what I am suggesting, we could be a world leader in brain cancer care and we could save lives too, so it is a win-win for everybody.

    As the hon. Lady said, the change is cost effective. It is estimated that it would cost £250,000 to £400,000 to ensure that all NHS trusts have the necessary capacity and capabilities for flash freezing. Every brain cancer patient should be able to access the latest treatment and research and the most accurate genome-sequencing techniques.

    In Owain’s case, there was enough freezer space, so storing his tissue in paraffin was a conscious decision not made out of necessity. That is why attitudes and established guidance protocols within the NHS about brain tissue freezing need to change. It should not be the norm to store removed brain tissue in something that makes it unusable for further research or treatment. I hope the Minister will commit to establishing national standards so that every suitable brain tumour sample is routinely frozen.

    A brain tumour can happen to anyone. It could affect us or any of our loved ones. This change needs to happen now to save lives in the future. It needs to happen for people such as Owain who are no longer with us, for people who are currently unwell with brain cancer and for people who will unfortunately become ill in the future. This Labour Government have a real opportunity to enact meaningful, positive and feasible change. We must seize that, especially if it is achievable and affordable.

    As I said earlier, we lead the world in life sciences, and brain cancer care is something that we can proudly be world leaders in. The national cancer plan, which will be published next month, must address the storage of brain tissue. Specifically, it must outline exactly how it will improve outcomes for patients with less survivable cancers. If we are serious about putting patients at the heart of cancer care, improving their awareness of the storage of their own tissue is one of the simplest places to start.

    The way that treatment is allocated is deeply unfair. The postcode lottery of cancer treatment must end. It is wrong that a person’s ability to access cancer treatment is dependent on where they live: 40% of people with cancer in the UK have struggled to access treatment or care because of where they live. That is ineffective, unfair and discriminatory. Those are not the values that a Labour Government should uphold. For the cost of a few hundred thousand pounds, we could eliminate the postcode lottery that affects brain cancer patients. We need to ensure that all types of treatment, including experimental ones involving freezers and vaccines, can succeed in all areas, not only some. That exceptionally small investment could have a lifesaving impact.

    It is not only treatment that is affected by current protocol, but research. Owain’s tissue was no longer suitable for research because it was stored in paraffin. It is also incredibly difficult for a person to have control over their own tissue post extraction. The confusion about who technically owns it makes it challenging for people such as Ellie to retrieve the remaining tissue for further testing or research. We need to stop putting unnecessary barriers in place. We are making things harder than they need to be, and these practices have a direct impact on people’s everyday lives.

    It is just as alarming that all this is done without informed consent from the patient or their families. The importance of the storage method for brain tissue cannot be overstated when someone’s life relies upon it. Brain cancer patients and their families should have an absolute right to be consulted on and to give informed consent on how their tumour is stored. While we have the opportunity to make these changes in the national cancer plan for England, we must do so. It is a small, affordable change that could have a huge impact and improve cancer treatment nationwide.

    This issue was debated in the Welsh Senedd in July, and I wonder if the Minister could liaise with the Welsh Government about introducing a similar plan. I understand that the Minister there said he was not minded to introduce legislation. Could she raise this topic with him in bilateral meetings at some point? I was also hoping to get a commitment from the Minister today to meet me and my constituent Ellie, so that Ellie can explain in detail her husband Owain’s experience and we can discuss how to prevent the same thing happening to current and future patients.

    In matters of great importance like this, patients must be aware of what is happening to their tissue during treatment and afterwards. Families should be able to access their tissue if needed for future testing and research. I urge the Minister to think of real people like Owain, Ellie and their young daughter, whose lives could be so different now if patients were consulted, if the tissue was stored differently and if there were more medical freezers. I would specifically like to know the Government’s plans regarding brain tissue freezing, given the impact it would have on diagnostics, treatment and research. Do the Government plan to invest in freezer capacity, and do they intend to make flash freezing the norm?

    While brain tumours will continue to happen to people like Owain or anyone in this room, diagnostics, treatment and research can get better. The Government can lead the way and begin to change the attitudes and practices surrounding brain tissue freezing—in fact, we must do so. I do not wish to hear another story like Owain and Ellie’s, which is absolutely tragic, and I want Ellie’s campaign to succeed; it can and must. The most devastating thing is that Owain’s outcomes could have been different if the established guidance protocol had been different. Perhaps if these things had happened, Owain could have been sitting with Ellie in the Public Gallery today.

  • Chris Evans – 2023 Speech on the Armoured Cavalry Programme – Sheldon Review

    Chris Evans – 2023 Speech on the Armoured Cavalry Programme – Sheldon Review

    The speech made by Chris Evans, the Shadow Defence Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2023.

    Before I start, if you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Glenda Jackson, our former colleague, given the sad news that she recently passed away. She was a doughty champion for social justice and was the greatest actor of this or any other generation. I am sure further tributes will be paid in the coming days.

    What the Sheldon review has shown without a shadow of a doubt is that Ajax is the biggest procurement failure for a decade. The review is beyond damning. For a report to state,

    “Reporting was at times lacking, or unclear, or overly optimistic. That led to senior personnel and Ministers being surprised to discover in late 2020 and early 2021 that the programme was at much greater risk than they had appreciated”,

    is frankly embarrassing.

    There is no place to hide any longer. The failure to manage this contract was on this Conservative Government’s watch. It was they who allowed the relationship with General Dynamics to break down to such an extent that every time Ajax was mentioned, here or in the press, there was fevered speculation that the contract was about to be cancelled. That has caused anxiety for the Army and above all for the workers in General Dynamics in both Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale in my own Islwyn constituency. Even the threat of losing 400 jobs would be devastating for the south Wales economy.

    This programme has cost £5.5 billion and has been running for 13 years, but has yet to deliver one deployable vehicle. If this was the private sector, heads would roll, so I ask the Minister this: has any action been taken against anyone responsible for this mess? What new procedures have already been put in place on other major programmes to stop similar mistakes happening? Ministers must ensure that our NATO obligations are met in full, but, whether it is Ajax, delays to Wedgetail or a modern war-fighting division, NATO must have concerns. Have any been raised with the Government about Ajax?

    I well remember the sense of excitement from workers at Oakdale when this contract was signed in 2010, just after I was elected. The Ajax contract was then labelled a game changer, not only for south Wales, but for the Army. It is truly sad that we have arrived at a point where Ajax has become a byword for waste and incompetence.

    Workers at General Dynamics should have been listened to, but they were not. There was a

    “lack of appreciation of diverse and contrary voices, especially from those working on the ‘shopfloor’. These voices were not fully included, and were too easily dismissed.”

    Those are not my words, but the words of the report. Perhaps if workers had been listened to, we would not be standing here now.

    As the Minister knows, Ajax is not an isolated case: 37 out of 39 defence equipment contracts being run by the Ministry of Defence are marked red or amber by the National Audit Office. That includes Morpheus, which is extremely important to our armed forces. Have the problems with that programme’s communications system been fixed, or are they unfixable? What contingency plans are being made for Morpheus?

    For a contract as important as Ajax, with so much speculation around it, it is amazing that we have not had an oral statement on Ajax since December 2021. For too long, the Government have avoided scrutiny on this issue. On this and other future contracts, will the Minister commit to giving regular updates to the House? We are, after all, ensuring soldiers’ safety—the most important thing about the contract—and spending taxpayers’ money. I find myself in agreement with the Minister when he says that change has to come. It is not a moment too soon.

    James Cartlidge

    I begin by agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on Glenda Jackson; I do not think she was in the House when I was here, but she was an amazing actress and I join in his sentiments and echo them entirely.

    I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not just the shadow spokesman but has a clear constituency interest, and I respect that. He talks about fevered speculation and the impact on the workforce, and I totally understand that. We do not want to see that. He talks about coming to the House: I am here today to be absolutely clear with everyone about the latest position. In fact, my colleague the Paymaster General regularly updated the House on the position around Ajax when he was the Minister. My predecessor, now the Lord Chancellor, also issued a written statement earlier this year that was very detailed about the programme, so I think we have been consistent in updating the House.

    On some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, he asked about action on individuals. What we said when commissioning this review was that disciplinary action would be taken only if there was evidence of gross misconduct, and Mr Sheldon found no evidence of misconduct, let alone gross misconduct. That is the clear reason why individual action has not been taken.

    In terms of action across programmes, I point the hon. Gentleman to the very significant investment by the Army of £70 million over the next 10 years in Army procurement programmes, including in the past two years a doubling in the number of SROs and a doubling of the amount of time that SROs spend on their responsible major projects. Those are significant investments.

    I also point out to the hon. Gentleman some of the improvements we have seen. I accept that we need to go further but, if I may draw a contrast, this is not the first review of acquisition. Bernard Gray issued an independent “Review of Acquisition for the Secretary of State for Defence” in 2009, which described a poorly performing procurement system. That review found that

    “the average programme overruns by 80% or c.5 years from the time specified at initial approval through to in service dates”,

    and that was under a previous Government.

    These problems have been around for some time and it is disappointing. I have pointed to the improvements we have seen, but let me be absolutely clear: the ultimate reason we have this report is to learn lessons and the way we respond to it is to deliver a fundamentally better acquisition system. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on that and I hope we can all work together to that end.

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent estimate her Department has made of the number of (a) licensed and (b) unlicensed dog breeders operating in the UK.

    George Eustice

    No recent estimate has been made by Defra, but Battersea Dogs and Cats Home recently estimated that there are 895 licensed dog breeders in Great Britain.

  • Chris Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Chris Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the economic benefit of extending real-time data sharing to the whole consumer credit market.

    Harriett Baldwin

    HM Treasury does not hold information on the effect that sharing data in real time across the whole consumer credit market would have on consumer debt levels, or on wider economic conditions.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has regular discussions with his Cabinet colleagues on a wide variety of issues. In line with the practice of previous Administrations, details of internal discussions are not normally disclosed.

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the number of dogs that have been put to sleep for meeting the physical characteristics of a banned breed under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each of the last five years.

    George Eustice

    No estimate has been made of the number of dogs humanely destroyed under section 1 of the 1991 Act. There are 3,222 dogs on the list of exempted section 1 dogs in Great Britain. These are dogs assessed by the courts not to be a danger to public safety including, since 13 May 2014 in relation to England and Wales, assessed as being in the charge of a fit and proper person. Guidance for enforcers of the law on dangerous dogs was issued in March 2009 and is available on line via the link below.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

  • Chris Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Chris Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many NHS agencies have changed their name or merged in the last (a) 12 and (b) 24 months; and what the cost was to the public purse of such mergers and name changes.

    Ben Gummer

    No National Health Service arm’s length bodies have merged or changed their name in the last 24 months. As of 1 April 2016, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority (TDA) have been working under a shared leadership and operating framework as NHS Improvement. However, Monitor and the TDA have not formally merged. They continue to operate in line with their current legal underpinnings as two separate entities. In order to ensure that all NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts have access to the same kinds of support and interventions there will be much more alignment between the two organisations so that they can deliver what patients and taxpayers have a right to expect. As at the end of March, the cost associated with the recruitment of NHS Improvement’s Chief Executive and designing and supporting NHS Improvement’s new structure and operating model has been £655,190. There may have been other costs associated with the alignment of the two organisations but these have been absorbed in their baseline funding allocations.

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what guidance her Department provides to dog legislation officers on enforcing section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

    George Eustice

    No estimate has been made of the number of dogs humanely destroyed under section 1 of the 1991 Act. There are 3,222 dogs on the list of exempted section 1 dogs in Great Britain. These are dogs assessed by the courts not to be a danger to public safety including, since 13 May 2014 in relation to England and Wales, assessed as being in the charge of a fit and proper person. Guidance for enforcers of the law on dangerous dogs was issued in March 2009 and is available on line via the link below.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 on the number of pitbull terriers in the UK.

    George Eustice

    No estimate has been made of the number of dogs humanely destroyed under section 1 of the 1991 Act. There are 3,222 dogs on the list of exempted section 1 dogs in Great Britain. These are dogs assessed by the courts not to be a danger to public safety including, since 13 May 2014 in relation to England and Wales, assessed as being in the charge of a fit and proper person. Guidance for enforcers of the law on dangerous dogs was issued in March 2009 and is available on line via the link below.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69263/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-10-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what information her Department holds on the number of greyhounds which retired from racing in each of the last five years.

    George Eustice

    Under the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, there is no statutory requirement on any greyhound organisation or individual track to report any figures to Defra. The Regulations have now been in force for five years and Defra is currently undertaking a review of their effectiveness. The review is looking at the requirement on tracks to collect injury statistics and how they are then used; and the traceability of greyhounds after they have left the sport. Defra intends to consult on the initial findings of the review.

  • Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Chris Evans – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Evans on 2015-11-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 to enable the adjudicator to make an order awarding costs and expenses to appellants in successful parking appeals; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrew Jones

    Under current regulations the adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses against an enforcement authority where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable. The adjudicator may also award costs and expenses against either party where that party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or where their conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable. The Government has no plans to change this arrangement.