Malcolm Harrington: proposals will be of “considerable benefit” to cancer patients

During the week we ran a post criticising the government’s response regarding cancer patients to the Harrington review. Subsequently Malcolm Harrington, author of the eponymous review, has in a letter to The Guardian given a different view from that given in both the post and the paper’s own coverage of the story:

This issue is an incredibly important and sensitive one for many people. Contrary to your article, I believe the government’s proposals would significantly improve on the current system and would be of considerable benefit to those who face the real personal challenge of a cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment.

The government’s proposals have been developed as a result of evidence submitted to me by Macmillan and discussions with cancer specialists. The proposals would considerably increase the number of people who receive unconditional support in the benefits system. They would also reduce, not increase, the number of face-to-face assessments that individuals suffering from cancer would undergo.

The proposals are underpinned by a presumption that people undergoing cancer treatment will be entitled to the benefit if they have the necessary supporting evidence. They widen the scope of the people this applies to, while also allowing people who want to work to do so. This will mean better provision all round.

Delays in these proposals may ultimately affect individuals and their quality of life.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • I am very pleased that Malcolm Harrington has contacted the site. The original post did not seem to be accurate.

  • Oops, I see he has written to the Guardian, not to this website.

  • mike cobley 10th Dec '11 - 9:18pm

    This really isnt good enough – if Harrington wants to be convincing, he should provide an illustrative case history example of a typical individual and how they would be treated by the proposed system, with references/excerpts from the papers in question. This party once stood for minimising avoidable suffering but now its MPs seem to be standing mute as avoidable suffering is being allowed to widen, deepen and intensify. Trust needs to be earned, and I see precious little evidence that it is in any way deserved by the party’s upper ranks.

  • Sorry, but if this is implemented it will not benefit cancer patients. They will just be made to go through hoops to claim benefits, just like disabled people who have been moved off incapacity benefit after passing a ridiculous assessment. Many of those genuinely disabled people who have been moved onto JSA must now do 30 hours of unpaid work a week to keep their benefits. The proposal may have good intentions, but is open for substantial abuse if implemented.

  • I agree with George.

  • Again, seeing as how you’re not posting it yet, here’s what Macmillian think of LibDem attacks on people facing the toughest fight of their lives, Cancer:

    But it isn’t the EU or AV, so I guess LibDems won’t fight *too* hard on this!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Geoff Reid
    Don’t respond directly to the perpetrator is the golden rule. In my case the abuse came in 2017-18, the year between stepping down as Lord Mayor and being up ...
  • Paul Barker
    If The Liberals had stuck to their promise to deliver Electoral Reform Canada would now have a Parliament with a substantial Progressive majority - Trudeau didn...
  • expats
    Empty?? Further from the Guardian...David Liddell, the chief executive of Scottish Drugs Forum, welcomed the announcement: saying, “The extension of record...
  • Brad Barrows
    It is unacceptable that the UK government refuses to allow safe consumption rooms to be established when medical experts and the Scottish government believes th...
  • Peter Martin
    @ John @ David, I'm not sure what "rising to the challenge" means here. New Zealand is genuinely independent in the same way that Scotland could be if it wan...