I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(7) For the purposes of this section, a person is not precluded from being in complete remission by reason only of the fact that the person is receiving— (a) anti-hormonal medications, or (b) any form of preventative therapy or medicine intended to reduce the risk of recurrence of cancer following the end of active cancer treatment.” I thank the Minister of State for the way in which he has engaged with me on this matter in recent days. I think he accepts that we in the Labour Party proposed this amendment in good faith. I might describe it as a belt and braces approach to the particular provision in the Bill. The intention is to strengthen and galvanise it and ensure there is no ambiguity in any respect in terms of how this provision is interpreted by the insurance industry when people are in the position that they ought to have access to disregards and where there may be issues around it, intentional or otherwise. I think the Minister of State accepts this was proposed in good faith and in the spirit that we want to see the full Bill implemented so that there will not be any ambiguity whatsoever about any definitions in it, such as about what "remission" or "five years beyond active treatment" mean because those two tests are contained in the Bill. I am aware the Minister of State has received clear advice on his view there is no ambiguity and that the full intention and spirit of the Bill will be implemented. However, this is designed to avoid any ambiguity that might arise, especially in relation to the requirement of some cancer survivors who are in remission to receive ongoing hormonal treatment. That would apply, as the Minister of State is aware, primarily in the case of breast cancer survivors who have had a HER2-positive diagnosis and also in the case of some prostate cancers that are typically hormonally-driven and require the taking of medication on an ongoing basis. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State would put on record his position on the amendment. It would be a worthwhile exercise in itself just to establish the advice he has. I ask him to provide some clarity on his position on this and some reassurance that the Bill and the provision as currently drafted is, for want of a better description, bulletproof.

Sentiment score: 0.15

I know.

Sentiment score: 0.00