🚑 Accessibility of Radiotherapy

• Rural Accessibility Challenges: Tim Farron highlighted that many residents in Westmorland, especially those living in rural areas, are located dangerously far from the nearest radiotherapy treatment centers, often facing a two to four-hour round trip to the Rosemere centre at Preston. This distance severely impacts patients’ ability to complete or even start treatment.

• Impact of Travel on Treatment: Daisy Cooper and other MPs emphasized that long travel times to radiotherapy centers affect survival rates, as patients further away are less likely to be referred for treatment. The relocation of facilities like the Mount Vernon cancer centre could significantly reduce travel times and improve outcomes.

• Public Transport and Radiotherapy Access: Steff Aquarone and Anna Sabine discussed the necessity of improving public transport in rural areas, where radiotherapy deserts are more common. They noted that inadequate public transport, including the recent increase in bus fare caps, exacerbates the issue of accessibility.

• Underuse of Radiotherapy: Rachel Gilmour raised concerns about the underuse of radiotherapy in cancer treatment, suggesting that a lack of local transport might be a significant factor in why only 35% of cancer patients receive this treatment, compared to over 50% that should.

• Staff Recruiting and Training: Jim Shannon stressed the need for better recruitment and training of clinical oncologists, pointing out the low fill rate for training places and suggesting bursaries as a way to attract and retain professionals.

• Satellite Radiotherapy Units: Farron advocated for satellite units, such as a proposed center in Kendal, which could serve communities like Westmorland better by reducing travel distances and increasing the number of patients who can access treatment.

• Cross-Border and Geographical Considerations: Sorcha Eastwood highlighted the importance of recognizing geographical barriers to treatment and the need for collaborative efforts, especially across borders within the UK.

• Support After Treatment: Adam Dance called for more support for groups providing clinical and non-clinical assistance to radiotherapy patients post-treatment, recognizing the ongoing needs of patients and their families.

• National Capacity and Technology: Farron and other MPs pointed out that the UK lacks sufficient capacity and up-to-date technology for radiotherapy compared to countries like France, which has twice as many linear accelerators per capita. Investment in newer technology and centralizing equipment procurement were suggested as solutions.

• Government and NHS Response: The debate called for the government and NHS to develop a comprehensive long-term plan for radiotherapy, focusing on both the infrastructure and workforce. The Minister, Andrew Gwynne, agreed to meet with the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy and local oncologists to discuss these issues further.

• Workforce Shortages: Concerns were raised about shortages and recruitment freezes affecting the radiotherapy workforce, with calls for a 10-year workforce plan to address these challenges.

• Future of Cancer Care: The Minister announced a call for evidence for a national cancer plan and confirmed that radiotherapy would be a part of it, indicating a commitment to improving cancer care services across the UK.

The parliamentary session on the accessibility of radiotherapy displays a low level of disagreement, which is reflected in the rating of 1. The debate is primarily characterized by consensus and supportive dialogue among members from different parties, including Liberal Democrats, DUP, Alliance, Independent, and Labour. Here is a detailed reasoning with examples:

1. Consensus on the Issue: All speakers, including MPs like Tim Farron, Daisy Cooper, and Helen Morgan, agreed on the critical need to improve access to radiotherapy, especially in rural areas. There was a shared understanding that long travel times reduce the likelihood of patients receiving necessary treatments, thereby affecting cancer outcomes.

2. Supportive Interventions: The interactions between MPs were predominantly supportive, with many expressing gratitude for raising the issue and adding to the points made by Tim Farron. For instance, Daisy Cooper thanked Tim Farron for giving way and asked his agreement on a specific case in her constituency, to which he responded positively.

3. Shared Solutions: Suggestions made by different MPs aligned in nature, focusing on increasing the number of radiotherapy machines, improving workforce recruitment and retention, and strategically locating satellite units to shorten travel times. For example, Steff Aquarone suggested a two-pronged approach involving public transport and more service points, and Tim Farron supported this view.

4. Ministerial Agreement: The Minister, Andrew Gwynne, was receptive to the points raised by MPs. He confirmed that radiotherapy would be included in the national cancer plan and agreed to meet with Tim Farron and others to discuss the local need for a satellite unit and the broader national picture. This further supports the consensus on the need for improved access and infrastructure.

5. Call to Action and Cooperation: The conclusion of the debate saw Tim Farron encouraging more MPs to join the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, underlining the collaborative effort needed to address the issue. This reflects a united front in tackling the problem.

The examples of disagreement or contrasting views were minimal and, when present, were more about highlighting different aspects of the same problem rather than opposing viewpoints. For instance, the mention of regional disparities in radiotherapy provision rates (Tim Farron’s mention of the lowest rate being in his constituency) highlighted different aspects of the issue without contesting the need for action.

Thus, the overall tone and content of the session were cooperative, with a collective call for better radiotherapy access across the UK, justifying a rating of 1 for disagreement.