Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to discuss a number of matters with Macmillan Cancer Support, which drew my attention to the particular problems in obtaining travel insurance that are faced by patients who have had or who might continue to have cancer. The current arrangements are quite discriminatory. However, that is the very nature of any insurance policy, and companies will inevitably make what they regard to be actuarially sensible commercial decisions. That is primarily a matter for the companies, but I believe that a range of issues associated with this matter should be resolved, and I hope that in her response to the debate the minister can reassure me that she will approach insurance companies through their joint body to address the concerns of cancer patients.

I will spell out the three principal problems that people who have cancer encounter in purchasing travel insurance: higher premiums; refusals of and exclusions from coverage; and the way in which companies deal with their potential customers.

Macmillan Cancer Support has identified that 39 per cent of people who are affected by cancer are quoted higher premiums and that some companies fail to distinguish between people who are undergoing active treatment and those who have been cancer free for several years. The cost of travel insurance is often higher than the cost of the trip. The problem is not exclusive to cancer patients—it affects many people with chronic health conditions. When the Minister for Public Health responds and, I hope, contacts the Association of British Insurers, she might wish to mention the wider context, as well as the particular context of cancer patients.

One in 17 people who are affected by cancer say that they have been refused travel insurance altogether. I do not know how other members deal with their insurance arrangements, but I tend to be a creature of habit. I would perhaps be better served if I shopped around every time I wish to purchase insurance coverage, but I often just go back to a company that provides a range of products for car insurance, house insurance or whatever. Rightly or wrongly, many folk simply go to their normal insurer. However, one in 17 people say that they have been refused, and the reason for the refusal is not always made clear to the customer. People are often not offered advice on where they might get insurance—they are just told, "No." Insurance companies are commercial organisations and are entitled to make decisions about how they conduct their business, but it is not necessarily in their interests to behave in that way. The companies are in a competitive environment, so it might be in their interest to be rather more accommodating in dealing with the issues that we are discussing.

Another of the vehicles by which insurance companies deal with applications for insurance is to say, "Yes, we are happy to insure you, except for your current condition," but that kind of arrangement is almost valueless for many people, so it is not the best approach. From time to time, the responses of the staff who deal with such inquiries are rather insensitive, which may be to do with their training. Macmillan Cancer Support has provided a quote from one of its clients, who states:

"I was offered insurance excluding cover for carcinoid tumour in my right lung, which I found amusing as I had already advised them that as my right lung has been completely removed it is highly unlikely that I would claim unless I make medical science by growing it back in again. As my cancer was very rare and not 'normal' lung cancer I had extreme difficulty getting insurance people to understand the difference".

People who take part in Macmillan Cancer Support research activities report that type of insensitivity. The insurance companies would be best advised to consider closely how they deal with the issue.

I will close by giving an example from my constituency, for which I have permission to identify the individuals concerned. Norma Forbes and her husband, from Aberdeen, have had this type of problem. Mr Forbes has prostate cancer and is still undergoing treatment. Initially, the couple were covered by the insurance that they had already taken out, but when it ended they had terrible problems in trying to renew. They have had to accept cover that does not include Mr Forbes's cancer.

Many people want to be able to continue to travel. Of course the insurance companies have to deal with the risks, which are undoubtedly different, but we can significantly improve the situation. I commend the motion and Macmillan's campaign to the minister. I hope that she will be able to respond positively to my suggestion that she might approach the insurers.