partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

   Cabinet Office

   I will keep it brief, as requested. I thank all Members from across the Chamber for making time to contribute to this debate, which underlines the importance and urgency of the challenge that we face in the wider security and resilience landscape. That includes health, energy, water supplies, climate, our economy and our democracy. Even the Electoral Commission has suffered a cyber-attack. We face so many challenges and threats, and there are states that wish to exploit our weaknesses. That is why this debate is so important. The Backbench Business Committee recognises the number, scale and diversity of the attacks that we are now facing. Members have made points about the Canadian system and spoken about corruption. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about financial impropriety, and others spoke of the attacks on the Prime Minister. It is vital that we get our heads around the urgency of this issue, because the attacks that we face are growing exponentially and becoming more and more creative and inventive. Once again, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and thank Members for their contributions. Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

   Hansard source
2. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Marsha De Cordova

   Unemployed Young People

   I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his answers and the work he is leading on for young people. I recently visited a Jobcentre Plus office to meet the team and see some of the fantastic work they are doing to get our young people into work, but what struck me was that I had to visit a neighbouring constituency, because Battersea does not have its own office like that. Some of my constituents are having to take not one or two but three buses to get to that jobcentre when there is a perfectly good jobcentre in Wandsworth. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that we remove all barriers so that transport and travel is not a challenge for our young people in getting into work?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

   Animal Abusers

   My hon. Friend is making such a powerful speech that I did not want to interrupt, but I spoke to volunteers at the East Ardsley RSPCA in my constituency the other week. They told me that they have to endure abuse from people who accuse them of not taking care of animals, because people have reported cruelty to them, but the volunteers do not necessarily have the powers to act. If the RSPCA and other organisations had access to a database, that would solve that problem. Will my hon. Friend also take the opportunity to commend the RSPCA in my constituency for all of its outstanding work?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Akehurst

   Supporting British Pensioners

   Can the Minister set out what plans he has to make sure that today’s workers—tomorrow’s pensioners—enjoy a decent retirement?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Leigh Ingham

   NHS Breast Screening

   I recently visited the new breast care unit at County hospital, where Michelle Ellits and Mr Sekha Marla gave me a fantastic tour. One of the things they spoke about was having separate areas as people walk into the breast care unit for those who are having treatment for breast cancer and those who are there for a mammogram, because it scares women to go to the unit if they are not confident about what they are there for. Does my hon. Friend agree that although more scans, more mammograms and better support are important, something as fundamental as building design is integral in making sure that women take up the offer to get their mammogram?

   Hansard source
6. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Leigh Ingham

   Topical Questions

   On 17 July, I am hosting the Journey to Work expo in Stafford, bringing together successful major employers and local businesses, with the focused aim of getting young people into work. Last year, we had more than 300 people attend. Can the Minister tell me how the youth guarantee will reach young people in towns such as Stafford, and what support is available to communities already doing that kind of work?

   Hansard source
7. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Leigh Ingham

   Cabinet Office

   I, too, was recently in Canada with the Business and Trade Committee, and there was significant talk about the infrastructure projects that people have invested in. Beyond that they talked about the “Canada Strong” policy, which is about supporting industries in Canada, and ensuring that money being spent for the benefit of public good is spent with Canadian companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the procurement reforms made by the Cabinet Office in March are some of the most significant that we have seen in a generation, and should benefit British industry?

   Hansard source
8. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

   Animal Abusers

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e-petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light. This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care. I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year-old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act? As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

   Animal Abusers

   Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much. The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice. I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying. Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect. The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision. This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored? My 13-year-old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year-old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    NHS Breast Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing the debate, and I thank everyone who signed the petition. Behind every signature is a person, a family member or a friend, who has faced the frightening possibility that cancer may be found too late. They may even have lost somebody because it was found far too late. In Bawtry in my constituency, local people have painted the town pink over the last few years during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. They have also taken the time to promote a simple message inspired by the movie “Legally Blonde”: bend and check. It is a powerful reminder that awareness, confidence and early action can save lives. I am really glad that Epworth may also be turning the town pink later this year under Kim Penfold, who is getting shops to join in and turn their fronts pink to raise awareness of early detection and screening. The petition calls for routine breast screening to begin at 40 and to take place annually. That is a serious and understandable ask, but we must be guided by the evidence as well as the strength of feeling. The current NHS programme invites women to be screened every three years from the age of 50 until their 71st birthday. The independent UK National Screening Committee has advised that, on the evidence currently available, lowering the age or increasing the frequency of screening could bring harm as well as benefits, as we heard from my hon. Friend. Mammograms can be less accurate for younger women with denser breast tissue, increasing the risk of false positives and unnecessary tests and treatment. However, UK Age trial findings from a study of 160,000 women over 20 years show that annual mammograms for women in their 40s significantly reduces breast cancer deaths, saving a life for 1,000 women screened—one life, millions of memories. We cannot stand still. The question raised by this petition is therefore entirely legitimate. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed when Parliament can expect the UK National Screening Committee to consider the final AgeX trial findings and how the evidence on additional screening for women with dense breast tissue will inform future decisions. We must also focus on the women already entitled to screening, as about three in 10 eligible women do not take up their invitation. This Labour Government’s work on digital innovations, mobile units, targeted outreach and more accessible equipment is welcome, but it must reach women in deprived communities, rural areas and communities where uptake is at its lowest.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lee Pitcher

    NHS Breast Screening

    My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The environment that people first walk into makes a massive difference in how they feel about their screening. I went to one of those units with my wife only a couple of weeks ago—she had a lump in her breast—and the warm welcome that she got as we walked in was so amazing; it put her at ease and it put me at ease so I could support her, and it made the whole experience as good as it could possibly be. I am also thankful to say that she is doing very well. Will the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to ensure that the people who can already go for tests go for them? No woman should wait for a screening letter if she notices a lump, a change in shape, skin changes or anything that does not feel right. Whatever their age, they should contact their GP. Early diagnosis gives people more options, more time and often the chance to see children and grandchildren grow up. That is why this petition matters, and that is why, ultimately, we need to act on it.

    Hansard source
12. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kevin Bonavia

    Animal Abusers

    I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue to the House; I am very sympathetic. Animal abuse comes in many forms, and we should also consider what sanctions owners who are irresponsible with their pets should face. In my constituency, we recently had a horrific case where an XL bully attacked a man and he ended up needing hospital treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that people who cannot responsibly handle their animals are also committing a form of abuse and should be treated accordingly?

    Hansard source
13. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Katrina Murray

    Northern Ireland Office

    I will do my best on that score, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important debate. I want to draw on a consistent message that the Northern Ireland Committee has heard throughout a number of inquiries, whether into public services, the Northern Ireland economy, or police and security: the recurring question about whether the Northern Ireland Executive have been given sufficient funding to deliver the public services that people rightly expect. I know that am looking at that question from an interesting perspective—that of an MP whose constituency is not on the island of Ireland, and who is not directly affected by the day-to-day machinations and interdependence of relationships between the Northern Ireland Office, the Treasury, this place, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly—but as a Scottish MP, I do understand the practical realities of devolution. Week in, week out, I see the impact of different political priorities being pursued by different Governments with the resources available to them. We always say we do not have enough money, but we will never have enough money; we always want more money. And that experience has shaped how I view this debate. The Committee has considered in depth the evidence of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, recognising that Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances means that it requires more funding than a simple Barnett consequential. I keep coming back to the fact that the council again concludes that funding at around 124% of comparable spending in England is appropriate. It is considerably better than sticking a finger in the air and thinking of a number. The spending review reflects that assessment. The Executive will receive an average of £19.3 billion a year over the spending review period, alongside targeted investment in public service transformation, policing, and city and growth deals. That is not to dismiss the very real pressures on Northern Ireland’s public finances. But funding alone is not enough if public services are unable to plan because the Executive have yet to make the decisions needed to allocate that funding. Tomorrow is the last day of June—the end of the first quarter of the 2026-27 financial year—and the Northern Ireland Executive still have not agreed a single-year budget, let alone a multi-year one. That matters because budgets are not simply accounting exercises. They allow hospitals to plan, schools to recruit, police services to invest and public services to provide certainty for the people they serve. The consequences of delay are not abstract; they affect real people. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as one of the chairs of the Unison group of Labour MPs and someone who has been a member of Unison for 30 years. Before my time in this place, I lived this issue. When the Assembly collapsed in 2022, health workers in Northern Ireland received no pay increase because there was no functioning Executive able to implement the recommendations of the independent pay review body. The eventual award had to be backdated at the end of the financial year. The consequences were significant: employers had to take action to ensure that staff were not inadvertently paid below the national minimum wage; payroll teams faced complex manual calculations to recover interim payments once backdated awards were made; and, for many low-paid NHS staff members who were also in receipt of universal credit, it created unnecessary financial uncertainty and administrative complications, because a year’s backdated money in one pay packet is not an indicator of regular income. It was unfair on staff, inefficient for employers, and, ultimately, patients paid the price when public services could not plan with certainty. This was not a one-off. It has happened four times in the past five years, regardless of whether or not Stormont has been sitting. I know that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), in his life before this place, did his best to try to get it through, and that is recognised and known. But it is not acceptable. This year, the “Agenda for Change” trade unions have been told that there will be no uplift until a budget has been agreed. That means that, once again, there have been manual calculations to ensure that people are not being paid below the national minimum wage. We need to do more about that. Northern Ireland does receive funding above its independently assessed level of need. There have been levels of growth deals—defence growth deals, and city and growth deals, with the need to invest in apprenticeships —so the opportunity is there. The question is not simply about whether there is enough money; it is about whether the decisions are being taken to use that money effectively. The priority must be for the Executive to agree a budget —preferably a multi-year one—to give public services the certainty they need. Long-term planning ensures that significant investment delivers tangible improvements for the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore ask the Minister what further discussions he is having with the Executive to encourage agreement on a multi-year budget so that this record settlement can be translated into the public services and better outcomes that the people of Northern Ireland deserve, because they deserve nothing less.

    Hansard source
14. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Juliet Campbell

    Animal Abusers

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his opening speech, particularly for talking about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. I also thank the people from my constituency who signed the petition, and the petitioner for creating it. Animal abuse is a particular type of cruelty for which perpetrators should be made accountable—but far too often, that does not happen. I was encouraged by the Government’s animal welfare strategy, which sets out a clear vision for improving animal welfare standards across the country. This Government are delivering the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a generation, but we have the opportunity to go further. The Government could consider having a register of animal abusers and an automatic ban on ownership for all those convicted of animal abuse, to tackle the increased number of cases and reported cases that we are seeing today. In 2024, the RSPCA reported a heartbreaking increase in cases of animal and pet abuse, with their emergency line taking more than one call every 16 seconds. Therefore, I can only support the petition. Although courts can disqualify individuals from ownership once they are convicted of animal abuse, there is no central register on which charities, vets or businesses can check if someone is banned from keeping animals before selling or rehoming to them, or even employing them to take care of animals. The Government have said that having a public register would not be appropriate, because it would run the risk of exposing a person on the register to vigilantism. However, a closed register that is only accessible by, for example, vets, breeders and charities could remedy that problem. A closed register, alongside a mandatory ban, would serve as a deterrent to animal abusers, especially repeat offenders. Statistics show that abuse of pets is on the rise, and I have been made aware of an increase in animal abuse content being shared online, so I can only support the petition. The vast majority of pets are not simply animals to us, but members of our families. We recognise that although animal cruelty is on the rise, it is the exception; many pets across the country can safely rely on their owners for consistent care, safety and kindness. However, all animals deserve the best lives possible, so I ask the Government to build on the foundations that they laid in the animal welfare strategy.

    Hansard source
15. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Juliet Campbell

    NHS Breast Screening

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening remarks. I pay tribute to all those affected by breast cancer, those facing diagnosis, and their families, friends and carers who stand beside them. It is their experiences that make this debate so important. I also pay tribute to my constituents for signing this petition, and I thank the petitioner for starting it in the first place. I welcome the Government’s ambition for the national cancer plan, which commits the NHS to ensuring that, by 2035, 75% of people diagnosed with cancer will be cancer-free and living well five years after diagnosis. The plan will also develop further AI-assisted interpretation of images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and it will help us to detect breast cancer in women under 50 with denser breast tissue. Under the last Government, cancer performance targets had not been met since 2014, leaving too many women facing delays and poor health outcomes. However, I know that my constituents want this Government to go further and to include women aged 40 in routine invitations for breast cancer screening. According to CoppaFeel!, cases of breast cancer in under-50s are on the rise. A recent report states that we have seen a 5% increase in the last year. Patients under 50 are more likely to have their symptoms missed and to be diagnosed at a later stage in their cancer journey compared with those over 50. That issue is even more pronounced for women from minority and ethnic backgrounds and for those from deprived and rural areas, who have less access to screening opportunities in their communities. Additional public health attention needs to be paid to that. According to Breast Cancer Research, those groups are 10% more likely to begin treatment after the cancer has already become invasive and 20% more likely to require a mastectomy. To achieve our cancer outcome aspirations, I ask the Minister to extend routine mammogram invitations to women from the age of 40. I hope she will also consider the roll-out of alternative diagnostic measures that will affect the diagnosis of younger women.

    Hansard source
16. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Newbury

    Animal Abusers

    It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for what I think is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for, as always, introducing the debate so thoughtfully as a member of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to the petition. Colleagues may have been hoping to have an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I am afraid that today is not that day. The petitions that we debate are not often started by social media influencers, but it is because of the determination of Bea Elton—known to her millions of followers, myself included, as Clean with Bea—that we are able to debate this important issue today. I will forgive hon. Members who have not yet watched Bea’s videos if they are on their phones throughout my speech. Bea offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies. Sadly, she often comes across animals that have been neglected and have had to live in awful conditions. I am glad that Bea has used her experience and platform to bring the issue to Parliament. I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, as I know that preventing the needless suffering of animals unites us all, across the political spectrum. Last autumn, I went on a ride-along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looked like for her. My constituency is full of pet owners, and who can blame them—why would anyone who lives somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase not get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together? However, I admit that I do not have a pet, not because I do not love animals, but because I could not give one the time and attention that it deserves—I often joke that I have two young kids and that is enough for now. This debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right; it is a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie reinforced that. Like many people, I assumed that most of an RSPCA inspector’s work involved rescuing animals from awful situations—and of course, they do that, in tandem with the police—but what surprised me was how much of their time is spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spend hours following up with owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example, and they work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores inspectors’ advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate. One thing that has stayed with me from that day is that many cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, as we have heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it reminds us that animal welfare is often connected to the wider challenges in somebody’s life. We also know, as we have heard, that the relationship can work the other way. The Ruby’s law campaign highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control, knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. Nine in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals is not separate from protecting people; sometimes it is part of the very same task. That is why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals, so it relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors cannot force entry into a property if access is refused. The experience left me with one clear thought: our system does a reasonable job of responding once abuse has happened, but I am not convinced that it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As hon. Members have highlighted, the Government’s response to the petition states that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals. That is absolutely true, but rescue centres, breeders and pet shops cannot routinely check those records, so somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming the animal have no way of checking whether that person has been disqualified. That does not mean the law has comprehensively failed; it means there is a gap in the system. Breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first. Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we should not be relying on chance or left hoping that somebody will spot what has happened when another animal is already suffering. Surely it is better to stop the animal being placed there in the first place. I understand the Government’s concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as hon. Members have already outlined. If a register was available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers, it would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over. It would not be to name and shame, or to publish personal information, but to answer one simple question: can this person legally keep and care for an animal?

    Hansard source
17. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Newbury

    Animal Abusers

    I will never miss an opportunity to thank the RSPCA, including in Leeds South West and Morley and the East Ardsley centre. My hon. Friend is right that RSPCA staff and volunteers often face abuse themselves because many people are rightly passionate about protecting animals, but it is important to remember that their powers are far more limited than perhaps many of us realise. They are as determined as anybody to do the right thing by animals, so we need to make sure that they are given as many powers as are appropriate and that we support them in doing their important work. The enemy are the people who commit the abuse, not the people who try to help. The Government are right that judges should retain discretion over the terms of disqualification orders. Every case is different, and rehabilitation should always remain possible where appropriate, but once someone has been convicted of egregious animal abuse, a ban should be automatic and should have a practical effect. The petition is not asking us to reinvent the wheel. The convictions already exist and the courts already have the powers. All we are asking is to close one obvious gap in the system so that trusted organisations have the information they need to stop known offenders acquiring another vulnerable animal. I say to the Minister that if that change could prevent even a handful of animals suffering, it would be a step well worth taking.

    Hansard source
18. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Dean

    Youth Hubs

    16. What recent progress he has made on the expansion of youth hubs.

    Hansard source
19. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Dean

    Youth Hubs

    There is already much excitement in my community that East Herts will be home to one of the new youth hubs being rolled out by this Labour Government. I represent a semi-rural area where young people often have to make significant journeys across or even outside the constituency to access the services and support they need. Rurality can be a barrier to finding support and work, so will the Minister say a little more about how the Department’s model for youth hubs will account for it? Does a youth hub have to be in one location or can it be split across multiple venues if the interest is there?

    Hansard source
20. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Dean

    Topical Questions

    T5. The Child Maintenance Service has told one of my constituents that because the father of her children is claiming benefits, he can pay her only £6.73 a week, even though the CMS is aware that he has an additional hidden income of £97,000. Sadly, that is not an isolated case. Will the Minister set out, for my constituent, what the Government are doing to strengthen enforcement so that such cases can be treated as criminal matters?

    Hansard source
21. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Whitby

    Universal Credit: Care Leavers

    10. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that all care leavers are entitled to the same standard universal credit allowance.

    Hansard source
22. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Whitby

    Universal Credit: Care Leavers

    This Government are rightly committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity, but care leavers still face disproportionate challenges as they move into independent adulthood. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the universal credit age-related rates for care leavers, with a view to ensuring that all 18 to 24-year-old care leavers receive the same rate of UC as those aged 25 and over?

    Hansard source
23. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    Topical Questions

    Last week I attended the Warwickshire employer and stakeholder conference, where we heard from students, alumni and businesses who are providing time to young people so that they can gain the skills they need—it was very inspiring and moving. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage businesses to provide even more hours? Warwickshire College has said that this is a real challenge.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Prisoner Early Release

    We all accept that the prison capacity crisis requires difficult decisions to be made, but when Parliament passed the Sentencing Act, Ministers assured the House that the most serious and heinous offenders and those who commit the gravest crimes will continue to face the toughest sentences. Does the Minister not accept that most people would regard the actions of members of grooming gangs who have sexually abused, raped and exploited children—and child sex offenders more generally—as falling within the ordinary meaning of the most serious and heinous offences? If so, why are those not excluded from the release scheme? Can I say, as a local Member of Parliament, that I am disgusted that according to local news reports—the Government have not informed local MPs—Shabir Ahmed, the leader of the Rochdale grooming gang, who was an Oldham resident, is due to be released this week? He was convicted of crimes in relation to Rochdale victims, but we all know that for every victim who went through the court process other victims did not, so the idea that Oldham is somehow not affected by the evil of this person is ridiculous. May I urge the Minister please to look at that case in particular as well as the rules that are allowing this to be normalised? It cannot be allowed to be normalised.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Asylum Accommodation

    As the Minister will know from past correspondence, I am asking for greater transparency about the criteria used to prioritise asylum hotel closures. I am still not clear about why the Victoria hotel in Chadderton, which was contacted by the Home Office five years ago without any consultation with local people or with me as the Member of Parliament, remains in use. In fact, in the intervening period, the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) —who now sits on the Reform Benches—increased its capacity from 80 to 120 places. Oldham has always played its part, often doing far more than other places—in addition to the 114 asylum seekers currently in the hotel, there are 640 in dispersed accommodation in the town—but the Minister must accept that trust taken for granted becomes trust eroded. In the end, it is one housing market. We cannot have a situation where we see a push from hotels to settled accommodation but we allow Serco to take up family housing in Greater Manchester, when there are 500 children in temporary accommodation in my town alone. We have got to see this in the round, and local authorities have to be at the front and centre when the Home Office is doing the planning.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Youth Hubs

    17. What recent progress he has made on the expansion of youth hubs.

    Hansard source
27. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Youth Hubs

    Constituents in Dartford are also pleased that our area has been chosen as one of the local authorities to receive a youth hub. We have a growing population of under-25s, all of whom are talented and enthusiastic and want to get into the workplace. Will the Secretary of State set out when that hub is likely to open, what services will be available and what difference it will make to the lives of young people in Dartford?

    Hansard source
28. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim Dickson

    Asylum Accommodation

    I thank the Minister for the statement, and the Government’s clear objective to ensure that hotels are eliminated from our asylum accommodation system and that military bases become a short-term stopgap. Can he reassure us all that the Government will continue to focus very closely on processing people more quickly and ensuring that those not eligible to stay here are deported as soon as possible, so that the use of the military bases announced today, which are already up and running, is a temporary measure for as short a period as possible?

    Hansard source
29. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    I am grateful to have secured this important debate. I begin by asking the House to imagine a young woman in Britain in the 1950s. She is pregnant, she may have struggled to conceive and she may already have experienced the heartbreak of miscarriage, so she is desperate to do everything that she can to protect her baby. She goes to the doctor, as many of us would. She is prescribed a drug and told that it may help to prevent miscarriage, help her carry that baby to term and even give her the healthy child she so desperately wants. Of course she takes it—why would she not? She trusts her doctor, she trusts the health system and above all she wants to do the best she can for her child. But then imagine her finding out, decades later, that the very medicine that she took to protect her child had in fact harmed her, harmed that child and may even have harmed her grandchildren as well. That is the reality of diethylstilbestrol or DES. DES was widely prescribed as an anti-miscarriage drug between the 1930s and the 1970s. It was used to treat pregnancy complications and to supress breast milk, and it was prescribed to women who were looking to the medical profession for help. But DES was not the miracle drug they were told it was. Evidence emerged in the 1950s that not only was it ineffective, but that it was also dangerous. It has since been linked to breast cancer, cervical and vaginal cancers, infertility and a range of other serious reproductive and gynaecological issues. Yet despite the warning signs, the evidence of harm and the fact that other countries moved to withdraw or restrict its use, DES continued to be prescribed in Britain for decades. Around 300,000 women are estimated to have been given DES in the UK between 1939 and the 1970s.

    Hansard source
30. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    Yes, I agree that research is needed and that is one of the things that DES campaigners are calling for. One of those 300,000 women was Rita, the mother of my constituent, Jan Hall. Rita was prescribed DES when she was pregnant with Jan, but when Jan was just a toddler, Rita died of breast cancer. She was only 32. Jan herself later developed cervical cancer in her twenties. Because of the surgeries she had to undergo, she was told she may never be able to have children. She lived not only with that physical consequence, but with decades of uncertainty, fear, grief and anger. Her daughters have experienced significant gynaecological health problems, and now Jan worries about her grandchildren as well. Jan is not alone. Across the country, men, women and their families have come forward to share their stories and their experiences as victims of this scandal. Some of them are in the Gallery with us today and have allowed me to share some of their painful testimonies.

    Hansard source
31. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    It was a pleasure to meet Heather today, along with all the other campaigners. I thank them all for having shown such strength in coming forward to share their stories. One of the cruellest impacts of DES, which sets it apart from other medical scandals, is that its consequences do not stop with the women who were prescribed it or their immediate children. There is growing evidence of intergenerational impacts affecting grandchildren, and possibly beyond. We do not yet know how far those consequences reach. That uncertainty is part of the harm that the families face. Research suggests that women who took DES during pregnancy—the DES mothers—may face around a 30% higher chance of breast cancer. Female babies exposed in the womb—DES daughters—have around 40 times the risk of developing clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina and cervix. They also face increased risks of reproductive complications, including infertility, ectopic pregnancies, premature births and a range of other conditions and complications that we are learning about all the time. Clare, who is in the Gallery today, described being robbed of her fertility and suffering ovarian failure, and later developing an autoimmune inflammatory condition. At the age of 18, Juliette, who is also with us, was rushed to A&E with severe haemorrhaging after a reaction to the contraceptive pill, and she has stage 4 endometriosis. Anne-Marie, who is also with us, was taken off the pill due to stroke risk and has described being housebound due to the gynaecological issues she has faced. Many of them describe managing complex hormonal challenges and, later in life, debilitating menopausal symptoms. That is a common experience for a lot of these women.

    Hansard source
32. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    Of course. Recordkeeping is one of the issues we face as a campaign group. I know the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that, and I will come on to that issue later in my remarks. Limited studies have been done on DES sons, but they suggest that these men face an increased risk of genital abnormalities and infertility. In May 2026, Maxwell Samuda became the first man to speak out openly about the effects of the scandal on him and his family, and I pay tribute to him. There are serious, unresolved questions about the second and third generations—the grandchildren. That is important, because this is not history or a scandal of the past; it is live and a continuing injustice to these women and their families. People affected by DES are still living with the consequences today. Some are discovering later in life that health problems they have endured for decades may be connected to a drug that their mother took and was prescribed before they were born. Those who suspect DES exposure often find that doctors, clinicians and the wider health system have little or no awareness of it. That really matters, because for too many DES survivors, the harm has been compounded by the disbelief that they face. They have been told that their symptoms are unrelated and not to worry. They have been sent away, ignored, dismissed or left to piece the evidence together for themselves. Anne-Marie, who is here today, said that she had to buy her own medical encyclopaedia just to find out what was wrong with her. Sadly, that is part of a much wider pattern that we see in women’s health, which has been poorly understood for generations and continues to be poorly understood today. Women’s pain is too often minimised. Their symptoms are normalised or ignored. Reproductive health is often treated as something that is niche, too complicated, embarrassing or somehow secondary, and it is not given the seriousness that it deserves. Women are not listened to and their concerns are dismissed until the evidence is too impossible to ignore. The history and present experience of DES is part of that wider system and failure, and, even now, we do not have the systems in place to properly support those affected. One of the most worrying examples of that is in screening. Current routine smear testing for cervical cancer is designed primarily to deal with and detect changes linked to HPV. It does not reliably detect clear cell adenocarcinoma—the rare cancer associated with DES exposure. That means many DES daughters may believe that they are being adequately screened, but in fact the very cancers for which they have an increased risk will not be picked up through the standard process. Crucially, they need access to advanced screening for a much longer span of years than most women do. A truly heartbreaking experience of that was the experience of Charly, who is in the Gallery today. She is a DES daughter and was diagnosed with clear cell adenocarcinoma in her cervix and uterus at the age of eight; she was given a hysterectomy at the age of nine. We know that standard breast cancer screening does not pick things up and is not adequate for women who face DES exposure. Many women bear not only the emotional burden of uncertainty because of DES, but a financial burden, self-funding annual scans as a precautionary measure and undertaking fertility treatments. Today, in the meeting with the Minister, Juliette described the range of tests she undergoes every year at large personal expense and the lack of fairness for people who cannot afford to do so. That is unacceptable, which is why targeted screening and specialist monitoring for those at risk is so important. People who are affected need accurate information, proper care, and the chance of early diagnosis. When I first heard Jan’s story, I had to act, and as a nation, we have a unique responsibility to act.

    Hansard source
33. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have also met Susie—she is a doughty campaigner and a real tribute to the movement. I will come on to some of the calls of the DES Justice campaign shortly. The reason I think we as a nation have a unique responsibility to act is that DES was developed here in the UK, using public money. I am just going to let that sink in for a minute. It was not patented, meaning that it could be used widely, and it was. Despite the evidence of harms, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency still has not shown us any evidence of when it officially advised against the use of DES. In July last year, I co-ordinated a cross-party letter signed by 37 Members of Parliament, calling for recognition and an apology for those affected by DES. Since then, those affected have come together to establish the DES Justice campaign, and I pay tribute to all the brave men and women who have come forward to share their stories. I know how painful and personal this is, and I know that for many, speaking out means reliving a trauma that has shaped their whole life. I also want to acknowledge Clare Fletcher and the DES campaigners who have worked tirelessly for recognition, often with little support and against huge institutional silence, and I thank Sarah Corker and ITV News for their investigation, which helped bring the scandal to public attention and forced institutions to begin answering questions that were left unanswered for decades. That co-ordinated campaigning has paid off. In September, the MHRA admitted that it had made inaccurate statements for up to 25 years about when DES was withdrawn in Britain and apologised. In November, the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), acknowledged the suffering of DES-affected families and apologised. This was a huge step; it was the first time that many campaigners felt that the state had begun to recognise what had happened to them. That apology matters, but it cannot be the end of the matter, because for people like Jan—who has campaigned for more than 40 years—there must now be action. The DES Justice campaign is calling for the Government to take five clear steps. The first of those steps is to commit to uncovering the truth about what happened, including through a full, judge-led statutory inquiry. The second is to support research into the long-term and intergenerational effects of DES; the third is to raise awareness of DES among NHS professionals; the fourth is to assess the feasibility of tracking and informing those potentially exposed to DES; and the fifth is to introduce targeted screening and monitoring for those at risk. Those asks are reasonable, practical and necessary, because while some progress has been made, it remains nowhere near enough. We need updated and accurate information on the NHS website, so that people searching for DES are not left confused, frightened, or dependent on campaign groups for basic fasts. We need better information flows to GPs, gynaecologists, oncologists, fertility specialists and other NHS professionals. We need DES to be included in medical training and continuing professional development, so that clinicians know what it is, what the risks are, and how to support people who have been exposed. We need clear guidance on screening and monitoring, especially given the limitations of routine smear testing. We also need a serious effort to understand whether and how those at risk can be identified, and those affected informed. I recognise that this is difficult—many of the records are old, and some have been lost or destroyed or were never kept properly. Some people will not know whether their mothers took DES, and some mothers may no longer be alive to be asked, but difficulty cannot be an excuse for inaction. There are people who may be at risk today and do not know it. There are women who believe they are protected by the smear test, but they need specialist monitoring. There are families living with unexplained patterns of gynaecological problems—infertility, pregnancy loss or cancer—without even ever knowing that DES could be part of the picture.

    Hansard source
34. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstilbestrol: Intergenerational Impact

    There are mothers who carry and have carried unimaginable guilt—a guilt that should never have been theirs to bear. No mother should be made to feel responsible for trusting her doctor, no daughter should be left to feel that her suffering is inexplicable, and no family should be forced to campaign for decades simply to be believed. I believe that DES is the greatest pharmaceutical scandal of our time, and one for which we owe victims justice and greater accountability. A drug developed using public money was prescribed to hundreds of thousands of women, with evidence of harm emerging while it continued to be used, and the consequences stretch across generations, yet most people have never heard of it. That is part of the injustice, too, and it must change. I thank the Minister for meeting some of our DES Justice campaigners and their families today. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for dropping into our drop-in this afternoon. Will the Minister honour the calls of those campaigners for greater awareness among NHS professionals; better clinical guidance; more publicly available information; research; and targeted screening and support? Will the Government consider the case for a full statutory inquiry, so that the truth can finally be established? Time is running out. Many DES mothers have already died. Many daughters are now later in life. Many campaigners have been fighting for decades to be heard. With every year that passes, more records disappear, more witnesses are lost and more families are left without answers. It is not too late to do the right thing, to acknowledge the scale of the failure and to improve care for those who were affected. I close by paying tribute again to my constituent Jan, whose courage and determination brought this issue to my attention. She has kept campaigning not just for herself, but for every family affected by DES. I pay tribute to every DES mother, daughter, son and grandchild, and every family member who has fought for recognition. They deserve justice, and they deserve answers and to know what happened to them. They deserve to be supported by the very health system that failed them. If anyone listening to this debate thinks that they, their mother, their grandmother or someone they know may have been affected by DES, I urge them to seek further information from the DES Justice campaign or to contact my office. This Government have an opportunity to listen, to act and to begin putting right one of the greatest medical injustices of our time. I urge the Minister to take that opportunity today.

    Hansard source
35. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jess Phillips

    Prisoner Early Release

    I recognise that very few rapists went to prison under the previous Administration and that the increase in rapists, especially child rapists, going to prison under this Government has been huge. I congratulate the Government on that. It is, however, my opinion that there should be more exemptions within the release scheme, and we should all be working together to see if child rapists can be included in that, should the numbers allow it, because we also cannot let the prison system end. I would like to ask a really specific question about the risk assessments that will be done on these cases before release. I have to say that my experience of risk assessment in these cases is not great. It does not take account of the victim or public safety more broadly. Can we have an assurance that there has been a change to the risk assessments regime from how it was under the previous Administration, so that any risk assessment done on the release of any prisoner will ensure that we are actually safe in public?

    Hansard source
36. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jen Craft

    Northern Ireland Office

    Many Members across the House have spoken about the financial situation in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke very well about the impact that it has on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. I would like to touch briefly on the impact that it is having on a particular group of vulnerable individuals, and I declare an interest at this point as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability. That group of individuals is the people who had the misfortune to be housed at Muckamore Abbey hospital. An inquiry into two decades of systemic abuse concluded two weeks ago and published its report. Some of the findings were absolutely horrific. The report found that mistreatment became a normality and that patients suffered black eyes, broken bones and severe neglect. These were patients who had learning disabilities and mental health issues. They were some of the most vulnerable people in our society—quite often non-verbal and unable to raise concerns about their treatment themselves. They were subjected to neglect, poor care and a wider diminution of their rights. Many had their lives made miserable by systematic bullying by certain members of staff. The report raised serious concerns about the attitude of the trust towards patients and the abuse being reported. There was evidence of patients not being washed, with faeces under their fingernails or on their clothes, becoming obese or losing weight dramatically, owing to a lack of care over diet, and other patients were over-medicated and described as being “zombified”. Parents have described seeing their adult children basically disappearing before their eyes in a locked institution that they were unable to access. The mistreatment of people with learning disabilities on locked mental health wards is unfortunately not contained to Northern Ireland, but this discussion about the estimates given to the Northern Ireland Executive presents an opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead the way. The report spoke of the need for a transformation in social care in Northern Ireland so that people with learning disabilities and mental health issues are treated in the community in a way that is compassionate and sees them as individuals. Given the £185 million set aside for public service transformation, does the Secretary of State share my hope that those who have suffered at Muckamore Abbey hospital, their families and their loved ones might see a transformation undertaken as a result of the report so that people in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the UK, do not have to suffer similarly?

    Hansard source
37. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Prisoner Early Release

    Those who perpetrate heinous crimes must face the full force of the law. Under this Government, convictions for child sex offences are at a record high. At the end of this Parliament, more criminals will be behind bars than ever before. However, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse—at one point, fewer than 100 places were left in the whole estate. Without the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in January, the courts would be at risk of grinding to a halt, preventing sex offenders and others from being brought to justice. No space in prisons would mean no trials, no justice for victims and no punishment for offenders. That is the choice: strict licence conditions in the community for those who have already served time in prison under our reforms, or the entire collapse of the system, leaving sex offenders and others acting with impunity. The previous Government added just 500 prison places to the system in 14 years, in stark contrast to this Government, who are delivering the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. We have delivered 3,100 additional places in under two years, and are on track to deliver almost 11,000 more by 2031. Under our reforms, dangerous offenders will continue to be locked up for a long time. More than 18,000 offenders serving life or extended sentences will not be affected by changes to release points and will remain subject to Parole Board decisions. Offenders who are released will face strict licence conditions, closer probation supervision for the most dangerous offenders, exclusion zones, tagging, 24/7 tracking and curfews. This is the biggest expansion of tagging in history, ensuring that dangerous offenders are monitored and the public are protected. If risk in the community becomes unmanageable, those offenders can be recalled to prison. The previous Government left prisons on the verge of collapse. This Government are safely delivering the reforms needed to end the cycle of capacity crises and protect the British public.

    Hansard source
38. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Prisoner Early Release

    I have listened to the hon. Member speak about this issue a lot, and I must again remind him of his party’s record in government and why the Sentencing Act was an absolute necessity to keep the criminal justice system functioning. When we came into office, prisons were at bursting point. Only 500 prison places were added in 14 years. Some 10,000 offenders were released by the previous Government, largely in secret. That is the key point, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member has quite rightly and understandably asked how the scheme will be delivered and how victims will be kept informed. Under the Conservatives, it was pure chaos. They lost their grip on the system and did not have a long-term plan for stability in the prison estate, which meant that when they did have to operate early release mechanisms, they gave the victims just a few days’ notice, if any at all. There was complete secrecy and complete chaos. We will not let that happen to the British public again. There is a choice. No alternative has been offered by the Opposition to the prison crisis that they created. There is a choice: strict—

    Hansard source
39. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Prisoner Early Release

    Let me be very clear, Mr Speaker. The Sentencing Act, which received Royal Assent in January, sets out some provisions that will come into effect in September. We are determined to ensure that victims receive due notification in good time, not just because we believe that the Government have a responsibility to let them know, but because we know that victims need to play a role in the licence conditions that we set. It is vital that victims’ voices are heard. That is why we have already begun communication with victims’ groups and, indeed, with victims who are party to the victim contact scheme. We will go further and ensure that all those who are party to the scheme receive precise information on their case—not just because we want to let them know, but because we want to hear from them to ensure that when we put in the most robust licence conditions in the community, victims’ voices are at the heart of the decisions we make. That is absolutely right, and that is not what happened under the Conservative Government.

    Hansard source
40. 29 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jake Richards

    Prisoner Early Release

    Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she did both in government and in opposition on these issues. She has raised with me outside the Chamber the issue of pre-sentencing reports, in particular in relation to domestic abuse. As she knows, I have spoken with Lord Timpson and we will come back to her on those specific measures. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of community safety. We have invested £700 million into the probation system—the biggest investment in probation for a generation —and recruited more probation officers than ever before. For the first time in several decades, the caseload of the average probation officer is coming down, in contrast to the record highs reached under the Conservatives.

    Hansard source