What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I encourage local businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency to look at the new incentives available from tomorrow. They can access a hiring incentive of £3,000 to help them with the cost of taking on a young person, provided that person has been out of work for six months or more. We want to do that in partnership with business. It is an important policy and I look forward to her being a champion of it in her constituency.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work with businesses. I want this to be seen as a national cause, a national endeavour, and a good partnership between business and Government, because it is in the whole country’s interests to make maximum use of the very best resource we have, which is the talents of the British people themselves.
The hon. Member raises an important question, which young people themselves are alive to. AI is an all-purpose technology; it will both destroy and create jobs. The leadership task is to ensure that this country is best placed to use the technology and is a good home for investment in it, as well as ensuring that AI adds to the skills of our people.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic champion for Stafford and her constituents. The youth guarantee will help young people in her constituency through hiring incentives, apprenticeship changes and more work experience placements. I know that she will work with me and the rest of Government to be a champion of opportunities for the young people of Stafford.
The Pensions Minister knows that there is no retirement on a dead planet, so will he commit to writing to the 50 largest UK pension funds to ask them to set out their timetable for divesting from fossil fuels?
We are having this debate because of the cost to us all of trying to move from the broken system that this Government inherited to a fair and effective one. We are in this position because the previous Government failed to process people, and the Conservatives now seem to want to rely on creating fiction, rather than fact, about what actually works. The Minister is absolutely right to argue that we need to tackle the root causes and try to stop people getting into boats. It is also right to recognise that where people are fleeing persecution and that is proven, it is the mark of a good society to help them. It is also more cost-effective. Given that last week the Government lost legal proceedings on the proposal about good character and citizenship, and given the likelihood of more litigation because of the fictitious idea that somebody travelling by an irregular route is somehow less of a person, does the Minister recognise that we will save money by changing the policy and putting integration, not ill will, at the heart of a future system for refugees?
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 leading this debate. Gemma Reeves is a breast cancer nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, my local hospital in Margate. She started a petition that I noticed on my Instagram feed a few months ago, which calls on the NHS to establish annual mammograms for 40-year-old women. I noticed that it was getting a lot of traction on my feed and that a lot of people I knew were signing up to it. I explored it more and wanted to understand where the policy would end up, but then—my colleagues will recognise this—it became another one of those campaigns I said I would do. One day, however, I found that Gemma was up here in Westminster with her son, Mason, and I came to meet her in Central Lobby. She told me what she had seen as a breast cancer care nurse in the hospital in Margate, during the pandemic and since: an increase in the number of women under 50 presenting with breast cancer. What she saw corroborates research from CoppaFeel! showing that breast cancer in young women is on the rise. She became increasingly concerned that the people she was caring for could have had screening that might have meant that, when they finally presented at hospital, their cancer was not so advanced. More than half of all breast cancer cases in the UK occur in people outside the national screening age—one in six are under 50. From having those conversations with Gemma, and since with the Minister, I know that many challenges come with tackling breast cancer in women under 50. We need to work out the best way of tackling breast cancer in younger women. I am delighted that the Minister met me, Gemma and her friends, who were previously her patients. They have become not just her friends but her co-campaigners, because they have experienced getting breast cancer under 50 and also wish that there had been some kind of screening to identify their cancer earlier. We and many people contributing to this debate know that screening is currently designed for older women; mammograms are designed for women over 50. Therefore, if we are looking for a way of screening young women, we may need to think about and explore different kinds of technologies, from MRIs to ultrasound. We also need to avoid false positives, as many of my colleagues have referred to. More women could end up fearing that they have breast cancer than actually have it if we introduce screening that produces false positives. We also need to recognise that, for many people, having an early test or check-in that includes things such as family history would enable them and their medical carers to spot the risks they are exposed to and decide whether they should go for early screening. Whatever the answer, it is clear that the status quo is not acceptable, because it is not built for young people. It is also clear that the evidence on the occurrence of breast cancer in under-50s is out of date; the most recent evidence is from 2018. Therefore, I am absolutely delighted that Gemma has been able to come forward and lead this campaign, gathering so many signatures to her petition from across the country, particularly in east Kent. I hope that the Minister will take seriously her request not only to publish the evidence, but to act on it, and to find new ways of making sure that women younger than the current screening age of 50 are able to access screening to get their breast cancer spotted early. One of our big missions in our mandate from the election was to tackle healthcare via prevention. Around 30% of breast cancers could be prevented through exercise, diet and alcohol control. Additionally, the earlier women are screened, the more likely it is that we can prevent illness and death. That is why I have supported Gemma in this campaign. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to exploring further ways of making sure that young women can be confident that breast screenings will spot cancer early.
I am interested in the possibilities of AI helping with detection and speeding up that process, freeing up resources to be directed into earlier detection by focusing on screening for younger women. If we are to harness the potential of AI, surely the first thing that we should do is to redirect the resources that are saved into ensuring that we can save more lives, potentially those of the young women who have campaigned so strongly on this petition.
How long do I have to speak? I have a lot to get through; let us see if I can make it. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), her constituent Gemma, Gemma’s son, Mason, and the other ladies in the Public Gallery today for their campaigning on this petition and for gathering so many signatures that we can debate it. I pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. I was very pleased to meet them last month to discuss this important issue. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). I commend her constant courage in speaking so openly about her experience of breast cancer. I send my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment. Behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, men, families and communities who have been affected by breast cancer in the most difficult and personal of ways. I pay tribute to NHS staff in breast screening services across the country, who work tirelessly to ensure that women and men are offered this important preventive measure. Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women. Each year, the programme is estimated to save 1,300 lives, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. Around 11,500 women still die from breast cancer each year. Many thousands more go through treatment, with all the fear, uncertainty and disruption that brings for them and the people who love them. That is why I am clear: we need to do more and will do more. The national cancer plan published earlier this year sets out how we will improve outcomes for breast cancer patients. We will speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients can access the latest treatments and technology and, ultimately, drive up this country’s cancer survival rates. The plan commits to rolling out breast pain clinics nationally by the end of the year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units. Cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier. I will now speak to points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—there might have been others, but those are the names I scribbled down. They raised issues about serving ethnic minority communities as well as underserved, deprived communities. Building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, as I mentioned, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. They will focus on increasing people’s awareness of symptoms, and support primary care to spot the signs of cancer early. The work will also include reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and least deprived areas. There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups because no one should be left behind. The NHS also runs its “Help Us, Help You” campaign in England, which helps to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms and address barriers to acting on them, as well as encouraging people to come forward to see their GP as soon as possible. I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age. It is a deeply human question that is often asked by people who have seen the impact of breast cancer at first hand. We are looking carefully at the evidence, but the picture is complex. I will come on to everything about that that has been raised. As we have heard, younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives, unnecessary tests, avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence. My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Broxtowe and for Edinburgh South West, as well as other colleagues, no doubt, raised that issue. As we know, some women will have denser breast tissue and unfortunately that makes mammography less effective because a potential cancer can be harder to spot. We are working to find the best solutions to that problem. A study called BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with dense breast tissue. The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and reviews the evidence as it becomes available. Ministers in the Department and across the Government will consider its recommendations as soon as they are made. A number of colleagues asked about the AgeX breast screening trial, which is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age. The trial has been looking at the effectiveness of offering some women one extra screening between the ages of 47 and 49 and one between the ages of 71 and 73. AgeX is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness, benefits and harms of screening in those age groups. The UK NSC will review the publication of the AgeX extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009, and results are expected in 2027, something the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about. Screening trials require extended follow-up periods to generate robust evidence on whether screening reduces disease or death, while also assessing any potential long-term harms. The UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, NHS England has produced a suite of public-facing information resources, communicating that women, especially those aged 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also asked why we do not screen annually. The three-year intervals of the national breast screening programme are based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances the risk of harm from over-diagnosis with the benefits of early detection, and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently.
As I said, the AgeX trial has been running since 2009 and has been researching the efficacy of providing breast cancer screening to people above and below the current screening age. It is due to report next year, so hopefully it will provide the further evidence that is necessary. It is already in train. These decisions are not taken lightly, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), asked me about AI. We are supporting the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial. It will test new AI technologies that could enable one specialist—rather than two, as is currently required—to complete a mammogram screening process, increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety. We are entering a new era in science and technology. Advances in data, genomics and predictive analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person’s individual risk. New tools, such as liquid biopsies and other non-invasive tests, may help us to detect cancer much earlier, and often before symptoms appear. The NHS is preparing to seize those breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation. The national cancer plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, including artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of pathology images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis. We will continue to horizon-scan for better methods of screening and to build the evidence base for any future changes. Our ambition is clear—to save more lives, to diagnose cancer earlier and to do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm.
Yes; saving more lives and freeing up resources is exactly what we should be doing. In relation to the AgeX trial evidence and other evidence that is being looked at, that will be happening within the next year. Hopefully for my hon. Friend and others here today and the campaigners, the evidence will be looked at and, if it is strong enough, things will change. Colleagues raised a number of other issues that I want to touch on. The hon. Member for Wokingham, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, always reminds us that it is not just women who are affected. Sixty thousand people a year are diagnosed with breast cancer, and a small proportion of that number will be men. It is always important that we remember that, and he is doing an amazing job as chair of the all-party group. If I am here and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, is here, the hon. Gentleman is often here as well—we have become a regular trio in these debates on a Monday. I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah and her husband David. What happened was so tragic. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that, and I want him to know that all of us here having heard it already means that it was not in vain. He said that he wanted to make sure that their story had been heard—how tragic it was, its consequences, and how long-lasting the effect of this awful disease is, not just on those who suffer, but on the wider family. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I cannot let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. I am pleased to report that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the very important issue of women with physical disabilities. We have spoken about this before. The NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities, as I know she is aware. Unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women for whom mammography is not an option, a physical exam can still be offered; and where a GP is concerned about the findings following a physical exam, the woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about amending the design of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of a mammogram in those specific circumstances. I can reassure the hon. Lady that the workforce plan is still imminent; I have nothing further to add on that. She mentioned lobular breast cancer and the Moon Shot project. As she is aware, in April Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, and I, alongside NIHR and MRC representatives, met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area. Following that meeting, a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer was organised earlier this month. Lord Vallance hosted the roundtable, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired a discussion considering the challenges and opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025. We hope that the team will make an application for that. I cannot finish my speech without stating one message as clearly as I can. If hon. Members or their constituents are, at any time, worried about breast cancer symptoms, such as a lump, an area of thickened tissue in the breast or any change in how their breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be, I say this: “Please do not wait to be offered screening. Please contact your GP at any stage.” Coming forward early, as we know—and as Gemma and her friends know more than most—can make all the difference. I want to make sure that message goes out loud and clear.
T7. Support for young people wanting access to the world of work has never been more crucial, but the success of youth hubs will depend on their ability to connect with, be useful to and understand the needs of employers. What steps will the youth hubs take to ensure that they are communicating with businesses and understanding their needs?
The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful speech she is making, and for her campaigning work on this really important issue. I recently met my constituent Susannah, who is a victim of the DES scandal. She spoke movingly about the impact it has had on her life—20 gruelling operations since she was a teenager, precious time with her friends and family lost and the shadow of a life-threatening illness, because of course as a DES sufferer, she is 40 times more likely to suffer from cervical cancer. Does my hon. Friend agree with Susannah and me that the Government should very carefully consider the merits of a full public inquiry into this scandal?
Question 4, Mr Speaker.
5. What recent progress he has made on the expansion of youth hubs.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that brilliant news, and I hope that they will focus on mathematics skills as well—I could do with some of that. Young people were left behind by the previous Conservative Government, with 13.2% in south-east Wales not in employment, education or training. Youth hubs offer personalised wraparound employment, skills and wellbeing support in targeted areas, so does the Secretary of State agree that the new youth facilities in Cardiff football club and Ely in my constituency, with proper consultation, are a clear demonstration of Labour fixing the mess left by the Conservatives and giving young people the best opportunity in life?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve in this Committee under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 May. Before I outline the provisions to be made by the statutory instrument, I will briefly provide some context. The Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, which for the sake of all our time I will now call OPRED, minimises the impact of the offshore oil and gas sector on the environment by controlling air emissions and discharges to sea, and by reducing disturbance over the life cycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring. OPRED recoups the eligible costs of its regulatory functions from industry in the offshore oil and gas sector in two ways: first, by using regulations that are covered by these draft fees regulations; and, secondly, by five charging schemes. The charging schemes do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively. OPRED’s average income from fees is about £7.3 million annually, recovered from about 100 companies. Currently, the fees that OPRED charges are based on rates of £210 an hour for environmental specialists and £114 an hour for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are technical staff who carry out the functions of the Secretary of State, and non-specialists are support staff. OPRED’s fees are determined by multiplying the appropriate hourly rate by the number of hours worked by environmental specialists and non-specialist staff. The current hourly rates have been in force since July 2025. Having reviewed its cost base, OPRED has concluded that the existing rates needed to be revised to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services. During the review, OPRED also identified that some regulatory costs were not being fully recovered, in particular the cost of statutory advice from nature conservation bodies and certain costs associated with the UK energy portal, which is OPRED’s digital system for delivering regulatory services. The revised cost base ensures that all eligible costs are met by those who benefit from the services, rather than by the taxpayer. That is consistent with the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” principles, which require full cost recovery where appropriate. The revised hourly rates were approved by the Treasury in January 2026. The draft fees regulations will amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rate for environmental specialists to £256 and for non-specialists to £130—there will be a quiz at the end to make sure that people know the difference between those two sets of numbers. OPRED formally consulted the offshore industry on the rate change proposals and the cost base revision in February this year. The consultation, which launched on 17 February and closed on 13 March, sought views on the proposed rates and their implementation, and we received five responses. While that is a limited number of responses, the issues raised were broadly consistent. Respondents commented primarily on the scale of the proposed increases, including the cumulative impact over successive financial years, and made comparisons with inflation rates, and they expressed concerns about the transparency of the underlying cost base and the timing of implementation. OPRED considered the consultation responses and concluded that the new rates accurately reflect the cost of carrying out its regulatory functions, despite being higher than the rate of inflation. OPRED acknowledged that the timing of the rate increase could cause issues for industry in relation to planning and budgeting, but it saw this as part of an anticipated annual process. The new hourly rates are expected to be brought into effect at the beginning of July, in line with rate changes in previous years. OPRED concluded that failure to implement the revised rates would result in costs falling on the taxpayer, rather than on those benefiting from its services. OPRED determined that the rates should be increased in accordance with the proposals in the consultation. A formal response was published in April 2026. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates. I conclude by emphasising that the revisions to the hourly rates introduced by the draft regulations will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, rather than those costs falling on the taxpayer. I hope that all hon. Members will support the measure.
Hear, hear!
The shadow Minister and I have this bout regularly, and he makes the same points as he always does. I congratulate him on the one by-election that his party has won, but I am afraid that I do not have time to name all the by-elections it has lost in recent years. However, I am absolutely delighted to find a bit of consensus between our two parties, and I welcome his support for the regulations. On the wider point, as I have said repeatedly, our domestic oil and gas industry is hugely important and will continue to be so for many years to come, but so too is investing in the future of our energy industry beyond oil and gas. I hope that the same consensus we saw at the start of the shadow Minister’s speech might yet be found on our wider investment in the North sea, which benefits his constituents and indeed those of the new hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden). Question put and agreed to.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely given the crucial NATO summit next week in Ankara. I was hoping that we would be inundated with contributions from across the House, but sadly it looks as though we might be limited to one or two. Keeping the country safe is the first responsibility of any Government. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has undertaken a huge amount of work during this Parliament to examine the Government’s approach to protecting the UK’s national security interests. From critical national infrastructure to the defence of our very democracy, our Committee has been working hard to highlight areas in need of vital improvement. There is no one “National Security Department”, of course, but the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the Government’s approach to national security and is the home of the national security secretariat. The Cabinet Office’s main estimate states that it plans to spend about £1.1 billion on day-to-day running costs and £600 million on investment projects, of which around £200 million in day-to-day costs and £25 million in investment will go towards keeping the country safe. However, national security is, at its core, a whole-of-Government responsibility, and it is therefore often difficult to get a handle on how much is being spent on the UK’s security and resilience—a point that I made to the Backbench Business Committee. In an era of unprecedented uncertainty and hybrid warfare, the case for increased spending on security and resilience could not be stronger. We see a proliferation of threats not just from hostile state actors, but from organised proxy groups and radicalised individuals. Take the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover in August 2025. The New York Times now reports that it was Russian in origin, and the evidence suggests that the Kremlin was either directly responsible for it or responsible for facilitating it through proxy actors. The impact was severe: it cost the British economy £2.5 billion, directly cost Jaguar Land Rover £485 million in the quarter and affected more than 5,000 firms. It was so significant that it impacted our quarterly growth figures. Threats are increasingly facilitated through the weaponisation of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum. Those who would seek to destabilise our democracy, our safety and our way of life have more opportunities than ever before to do so, and they know that. Meanwhile, the Government and NATO allies have already acknowledged this reality with their commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with 1.5% of that being earmarked for security and resilience.
That is such an important point, and I do not think that we as a Chamber have given it enough airtime. If we think about what would happen if any other premier of any other country was attacked like that—their home attacked and their car set on fire—the reaction from the media was quite muted. Now that it has become more obvious what happened, despite all the nonsense that circulated on social media at the time, it is important that that conversation happens. We are at a crucial juncture, as the hon. Member suggested. We are running out of time to ensure that we are prepared for a worst-case scenario of increasing Russian aggression, both conventional and hybrid. At a time when the United States’ security presence in Europe is being questioned, the threat from China looms ever larger, and the UK finds itself in a difficult position as a middle power in the midst of global strategic competition between the United States and China. As such, it is imperative that the Government are robustly held to account in delivering their spending commitments on defence, security and resilience.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The nature of our security is so multifaceted now in a way that it would not have been 30 years ago. Globally, we are beginning to get our heads around—I am sure the Government recognise this—how we need to pivot and reset ourselves into a very different defence and security posture, because our defence is as much on our mobile phone and our laptops, and to our way of life and our democracy, as it is at our borders, and that is crucial. My Committee was encouraged to hear from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government believe that they are on track to hit the target of 1.5% of GDP on security and resilience by 2035 by 2027—well ahead of time. But they have also been evasive on exactly what the spend will entail. Like any target, there is a risk of money being merely shuffled from one pot to another—an administrative exercise rather than genuine additional funding. My Committee recommended that the spending is prioritised on investment in systems that can help build long-term resilience, in addition to spending on maintenance of basic civil infrastructure. When we questioned the Minister, we sought to clarify what new resilience projects and capabilities the 1.5% would entail. We were given, I am afraid to say, only vague answers. Disappointingly, the Government’s response to our report on the national security strategy failed to elucidate much further. We recognise that there are reasons for being protective about certain information and not disclosing too much detail, but we seek more specificity in exactly how the Government are making critical infrastructure in the UK more resilient through this spending. In fact, I recently met the high commissioner of Canada who explained that they are investing hundreds of millions in large-scale infrastructure projects in their part of the High North, be it railways, road networks or deep sea ports. They are all planned to boost resilience across the nation.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not been to Canada in recent decades, but I am hearing that its approach should be of real interest to us, including how it is prioritising certain sectors and has identified certain capabilities. Although people are protective about what those capabilities might be, I would certainly welcome conversations behind closed doors with Ministers about what we are looking to do in a similar vein. It is striking that the Canadians are outlining their major projects and how they will spend their money, but they are also focusing on their capabilities. Here we have suffered from a lack of long-term commitment to investing in national security and preparedness. Our Government must also clearly outline what additional capabilities they are committed to developing through the target spend, prior to the start of the NATO summit next week. We need a national conversation about our nation’s defence and security. Over the last 18 months my Committee has heard repeatedly about the need to get the public on board when it comes to increased spending on defence, resilience and security. With the public purse under such strain, our constituents must understand why spending on such areas must be prioritised.
As if on cue, the hon. Member’s point is one I am just about to develop. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation, and during our inquiry on societal resilience we heard much about how our allies are engaging their citizens with that essential work. The UK is, I am afraid, a little behind the curve. Beyond the Baltic and Scandinavian nations, whose security and resilience is well documented, other nations are also moving up a gear. Their Governments engage significant numbers of military reserves, volunteers, firefighters, private defence organisations and NGOs in that conversation. In certain countries, everyone between the ages of 18 and 65 has a role in resilience—every single person. Some countries conduct wargame exercises on civilian defence, to identify weaknesses in their systems. Less obvious countries such as the Netherlands and Canada are making painful choices that are necessary to ensure that societal resilience can be strengthened. The situation warrants a reset of our whole approach to resilience and security, but to do that we must bring the public with us through a national conversation.
I thank the hon. Member, who I would also call a friend, not just for his kind words, but for his valuable contributions to the Committee over the past 18 months or so. Yes, it is vital that we engage the public, and it is incumbent on our media to start spelling some of this stuff out—not fearmongering, but explaining some of the harsh realities of what we face. There are certain nations who wish us absolute harm—we are their public enemy No. 1. We need to be much more open about that in our discourse with the public, not so as they become overly alarmed—as I may have been as a kid growing up—but so that they recognise the sorts of pressures that we face economically, socially and militarily. The situation demands that we bring the public along with us. The Committee has discussed how we develop that nationwide conversation, possibly including an education programme, by being more honest with the public about the threats that the UK faces. The pandemic highlighted huge gaps in our country and society’s resilience. Are we ready for the next crisis that might be heading our way? We must not fearmonger, but the Government must learn all they can from our allies who are further ahead of us with spending on resilience and preparedness. I want to stress that the situation was obvious to the last Government too. It is increasingly clear that for too long the UK has outsourced its security and resilience needs elsewhere, and is now entirely dependent on others for critical elements of its infrastructure. It is only through increasing the scale of investment in its sovereign capabilities, particularly in the realm of emerging technologies, that we can wean ourselves off these dependencies. The defence investment plan is crucial. It is essential in guiding businesses and investors. Direction is needed, as well as dynamism and agility. At a time when UK firms need certainty, we still lack clarity on exactly how investment will be allocated. As we highlighted in our report on the national security strategy, the longer businesses lack an adequate signal from Government about what investment might be on the way, the more vulnerable they are to acquisition by foreign investors and the more difficult it becomes to achieve our sovereignty goals. The Government have made steps in the right direction through investments as part of the AI opportunities action plan and the work of the sovereign AI unit. Those are to be commended. The UK has a strong base of talent in those technologies, but the Government need to go further and faster to secure our advantage in the long term. Now is the time to secure the investment, the jobs and economic security we need through a proper digital sovereignty strategy. As we saw last week in the series of cyber-attacks, economic security is national security. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will continue to fulfil its role and to press the Government on all these points and more in a constructive and collaborative way, as it has done these past 18 months. It is only through robust challenge and scrutiny that we can ensure the Government are doing all they can to keep the people, businesses and critical systems of the UK safe and secure. As Lord Robertson of Port Ellen told the Committee earlier this year, “it is much better to pay for deterrence than to pay for war.” It is also, ultimately, less costly. I urge the Government to take heed.
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).
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?
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?
Can the Minister set out what plans he has to make sure that today’s workers—tomorrow’s pensioners—enjoy a decent retirement?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.