Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia

Tuesday 21 October 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Sir Gavin Williamson asked about support for people with acute myeloid leukaemia in the UK Parliament.
  • The Minister stated that a colleague would write to Sir Gavin about Ruth Wake's specific case.
  • The Minister noted that they cannot comment on individual cases due to privacy laws.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Gavin Williamson Con Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
NHS
Context

Ruth Wake, a constituent of Sir Gavin Williamson from Brewood, was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia in January last year. She has undergone chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant but the transplant failed after nine and a half months under current rules.

Question

What steps is his Department taking to support people with acute myeloid leukaemia? My constituent Ruth Wake, diagnosed with AML in January 2023, underwent chemo and a stem cell transplant which has now failed. Under current regulations, she cannot receive another transplant due to the time elapsed since her first attempt. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are outdated; could the Minister look into this case and these guidelines?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)

The Minister thanks Sir Gavin Williamson for his concern about the constituent, confirms that one of her ministerial colleagues will write to him soon regarding the specific case. She adds that while she cannot comment on individual cases due to privacy laws, she understands the urgency of Ruth's situation and notes the importance of revisiting guidelines based on recent scientific advancements.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The Minister did not address the specific ask for a review of NICE guidelines or the examination of Ruth's case directly beyond indicating that someone will follow up, which lacks concrete action.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)