Prisoner Early Release
As I said, the impact assessment published during the Sentencing Act’s passage through Parliament set out very clearly that 7,500 prison places would be saved as a result of the Act.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release
I seem to spend half my life writing to the hon. Member, who asks a lot of questions on this issue. Let us be clear about the facts here: under the Conservative Government, only 500 places were built in 14 years. In two years, we have built 3,500 net places and we will have 14,000 by 2031. The hon. Member makes the point, “Well, some of those were apparently planned for or envisaged by the last Conservative Government.” Unless I am hallucinating, I am the one who is opening these prisons under a Labour Government.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release
The hon. Member is right that faith in the justice system is absolutely crucial. That is why the situation we inherited—the criminal justice system teetering on the brink of collapse, meaning no trials and making arrests impossible—was completely unacceptable, and we will never let that happen again.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release
Let me put on the record my gratitude for the bravery of those victims that the hon. and learned Gentleman identified for what they undertook to ensure that there was justice. What undermines confidence in the criminal justice system is a system that completely unravels. Without the appropriate prison places and without getting down the Crown Court backlog, which my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister is busy doing, we undermine faith in the system completely. We cannot let that happen. That will mean difficult decisions, but we will not shy away from them.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release
We will not shy away from the difficult decisions needed to save the criminal justice system to ensure that we have prison places to put criminals behind bars. By the end of this Parliament, more criminals will be behind bars than ever before. This is not a matter of being soft on crime; it is a matter of ensuring that we can put criminals away in future.
- Hansard source
Animal Abusers
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and a privilege to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The creator of the petition, Bea Elton, joins us in the Public Gallery. Bea does not work day to day in the protection of animals; she provides a cleaning service for those in need and who are struggling to keep their homes in order. She documents this on her Instagram channel, cleanwithbeax, which has more than 2.2 million followers—probably about the same number as the Minister has. Bea was kind enough to meet me online ahead of today’s debate—it is lucky she did not meet me in my office, because there was quite a lot of cleaning to do on my desk. Meeting Bea made clear to me her passion and sense of duty for those less fortunate than herself. While deep cleaning homes, Bea has uncovered the awful situations in which some animals find themselves vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse. It is important to note the distinction between abuse and neglect. Abuse is distinguished by intent. Some people unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, such as financial difficulty or mental distress. Those people are not the concern of this petition, which is focused on intentional abuse. The abuse we are discussing today is not the professional cruelty of organised criminals running illegal dogfights or breeding operations, which are well known to the police, or abusive commercial practices in farms; it is about the hidden cruelty inflicted in domestic settings up and down the country. Bea emphasised to me that her focus is on abuse committed in the domestic, rather than the commercial setting. Unfortunately, the most recent statistics from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the main investigative body for offences under the current legislation, confirm that Bea’s experiences reflect the situation across our society. In 2022, 400 pet owners were convicted on evidence gathered by the RSPCA in its investigations. I put on record my thanks to the RSPCA for its tireless work in this space right across our country. The abuse of animals offends our deepest instincts of fairness and kindness. These animals are utterly blameless, yet uniquely vulnerable. The more animals Bea found in this predicament, the stronger became her conviction that the current system for preventing animal abuse is inadequate. One of Bea’s most pressing concerns is that the system fails to prevent animal abuse from occurring in the first place. In short, Bea’s petition requests that those convicted of animal abuse be prohibited from owning animals again, and that their conviction be listed on a national register that can be accessed by breeders, charities, vets, local authorities and other appropriate organisations. In response, the Government have rejected the demands on the grounds that the current provisions are sufficient; I will return to those points later in my remarks.
- Hansard source
Animal Abusers
I think that is a separate issue, but legislation on XL bullies already exists and it needs to be properly enforced. Animal abuse convictions are most often made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sexual abuse is covered by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. An individual convicted under the Animal Welfare Act can face up to five years in prison and can be subject to a court-issued disqualification order preventing them from owning animals for the rest of their life, although the court decides the specific terms of the order. The experts I spoke to in preparation for this debate—I thank Claire McParland, Dr David Martin and Mark Randell—agree that the current legislative framework is a significant improvement on the previous legislation, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime. The Government note in their response that all “offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations” and with members of the public in specific circumstances. However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive. Under the current system, the reporting of suspected offences is an inevitable challenge. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventive. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they may assume that the authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begins to investigate a report, it can request information from the police about any previous convictions, but that process can be slow and there is no guarantee that the police will release the information. A dedicated national register would, of course, make that easier. Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day-to-day activities. On the other hand, Mark Randell, a former police officer who has spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, said that identifying animal abuse is not standardised across police forces, and understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across the country. We should consider standardised training so that there is not a postcode lottery. Despite the difficulties, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year. Although disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, the petition requests that bans be made automatic upon conviction. That might reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy, we evaluate proposals for punishing crimes based not simply on how effectively they prevent recurrence, but on whether the punishment is proportionate, and it is not clear that automatic lifetime bans are proportionate. An automatic ban has no regard for whether the perpetrator is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, they could be in a coercive or controlling relationship, or could themselves be a victim of abuse, which might drive them to inflict harm on animals. In such cases, it is harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, so an automatic ban may be disproportionate.
- Hansard source
Animal Abusers
I agree. The threat of prosecution was strengthened by the 2006 Act, which has aided in preventing abuse. When the Government review the animal welfare legislation, they should take that into consideration. A lifetime ban ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. In this country, we believe that those who break the law can be rehabilitated into law-abiding society. Imagine a case in which a child or young adult commits abuse against an animal. What if they are locking that animal in a cupboard to protect it from a violent parent? A lifetime ban would mean that they would be unable to have such a pet in their retirement, which feels disproportionate. When the argument is considered from that perspective, the discretionary nature of disqualification orders appears to be a strength: judges have the freedom to consider the offender’s circumstances, which may have motivated the crime. None the less, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent recurrence. Guidelines could be changed to make them time-limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed. As for the national register, the RSPCA has repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for it to access the history of an alleged offender. How the register works in practice must be considered carefully. Bea wants the register to be accessible to appropriate organisations, but not the general public, which would avoid giving rise to animal abuse vigilantism, the likes of which we have seen spreading on social media in other cases. Alongside access, there is also the question of what information the register should contain. A public register may be less effective if it is simply a snapshot of past offending. As I noted earlier, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act are only part of the picture, and a register of convictions is not as detailed as the archive of RSPCA intelligence. Information must be comprehensive and up to date if it is to be truly effective for relevant agencies. A more useful alternative might therefore be a disclosure scheme akin to Clare’s law, which enables police to disclose information about an individual’s history of violence or abuse where there is a credible risk to their partner. That scheme is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons if they do not wish to make a disclosure. The family of Holly Bramley have been campaigning for an animal abuse register and police disclosure scheme since her tragic murder in 2023. Holly’s killer was a prolific abuser and killer of animals and he used the threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence cannot be ignored, and it is key to this debate. We owe it to Holly to take action.
- Hansard source
Animal Abusers
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was shocked by some of the evidence I heard while preparing for this debate about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. As the Government consider the next steps, that must be key to their thinking. I understand that the RSPCA is in discussions with the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse, and I would welcome an update on those discussions from the Minister. In just three months, Bea’s petition has received more than 238,000 signatures, illustrating the depth of feeling across our country about abuse against animals. That feeling, together with the expert opinion of organisations such as the RSPCA, indicates that the current provisions against animal abuse are not adequate. An automatic life ban for convicted abusers appears to be a disproportionate response, though questions remain about whether disqualification orders are being used as frequently as they should be. A public register of convictions is similarly unsuitable. However, a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse might strike the right balance, allowing the appropriate agencies up-to-date access and intelligence when they need it, in order to intervene before abuse is committed. I thank Bea for creating this petition and allowing this necessary debate—my office is a prime candidate if she wants to conduct another spring clean.
- Hansard source
Animal Abusers
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It is great that there has been cross-party support. I hope Bea is happy about that, because that does not always happen in this place, but I think that is because we are a nation of animal lovers, as the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked whether the current systems are enough to stop a convicted animal abuser from simply buying another animal, and I think the answer is no. The Minister says that the Government want a disclosure scheme, but we need to consider how that would work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about partners being able to buy pets. The Government should look at that loophole, but the Minister did not mention it in his speech. I am always keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury)—particularly when he makes insightful points and people think it is me making them. What he said about trusted organisations having access to some kind of register was very important. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) has done as a vet. He spoke with great authority about people’s motivation for this crime. He talked about deliberate suffering and the warning signs of domestic abuse. As the Minister investigates this area more closely, I encourage him to work across Government with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I hope Bea has enjoyed the debate. I thank her very much for starting the petition and I thank the quarter of a million people who signed it. Hopefully, we have some good action to take forward. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I would like to start by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, for all the hard work she has put into starting the petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from across the UK. The petition is titled “Lower the age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 & perform annually”, and says: “Lower the age for when you are first called to 40 and provide funding to carry out Mammograms Annually instead of every Three Years. Early detection is key and the prevalence of Breast Cancer in young patients is rising. I am a Chemotherapy Nurse and working in this Clinical Setting for 8 Years and I have seen a rise in Breast Cancer in Patients under the Age of 40 increase. Early detection is key in identifying those Aggressive forms of Breast Cancer”. This is an issue that many people here and outside the Chamber care deeply about. Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from it every year. I had the privilege of meeting with Gemma, who is here today. She told me about her experience of being a nurse for 15 years, eight of which have been in oncology, and about her concerns from having seen a rise in breast cancer cases in younger women, especially since covid. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women in the UK—one in seven women may get it. As Gemma wrote in her petition, “Early detection is key”, and has led to improved recovery and survival rates. Over half of breast cancer cases occur in women outside the national screening age, and one in six occur in women under 50. Men, too, get breast cancer; however, they make up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening between the ages of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are 71. They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but will not be automatically invited. Although everyone is at risk of breast cancer, women are at a higher risk if they are over 50, have dense breast tissue, have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or have particular breast conditions, for example benign breast disease. There is a breast screening pathway for those identified as NHS-targeted very high risk. It is also important to note that NICE guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high-risk groups.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue. Some 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 2024-25, and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1,000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade and has been championed by charities such as Breast Cancer Now, which shares public figures, stories and personal messages.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
Screening is key, and we have to be bolder and more inventive about how we get people along to screening. There have been many public health campaigns over the years. After a campaign, there is always a rise in attendance, but when the campaign stops, attendance falls again, so I agree that that is something that the Minister must look at.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, that is not just the case for breast screening; bowel cancer screening is lower in areas of economic and health deprivation. We must look at how we target those populations. It is key that we continue to increase awareness of the importance of routine health appointments and modifiable risk factors. Although screening is increasing generally, the NHS breast screening programme found that one in three women still do not take up their offer of screening. As my hon. Friend said, it is key that we continue with strategies that promote the uptake of screening in areas of lower attendance such as by running awareness campaigns, sending reminder texts and deploying mobile screening units, among other strategies. In preparing for this debate, I met Breast Cancer Now, as well as CoppaFeel!, the UK’s only youth-focused breast cancer awareness charity. They call for more screening of women who have a higher risk of breast cancer, as well as providing women identified with wraparound support. Diagnostics are key to identifying those with breast cancer successfully, although mammography is not always the best diagnostic tool, particularly for younger women and those with dense breast tissue, so it is important to invest in other diagnostics, such as MRIs, and to consider their capacity to be scaled and expanded. Younger women tend also to have denser breasts, which mammograms are worse at analysing as the scans are harder to interpret. That can lead to women having repeated scans and extended investigations. It is important to note that most European countries screen for breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 69, although there is some variation in age ranges and frequency, with countries such as Albania, Iceland and Sweden starting screening at 40. Although breast cancer diagnoses for women under 40 are rarer, and about 4% of breast cancer cases in the UK are in women under 40, when young women get breast cancer, they are much more likely than older women to have a family history of breast cancer and genetic mutations that are associated with increased risk. There is an ongoing trial called AgeX, which is looking at the benefits of regularly screening women aged 47 to 49 and aged 71 to 73, given how little is known about screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70. The trial took place from 2009 until 2020, and 4 million women took part. The first report to come out of the trials is due in December 2026 and the final report is due in 2031, so it will be a few years before we know its findings. Other trials include the UK age trial, led by Professor Stephen Duffy, which looked into the effectiveness of annual mammographic screening for women in their 40s and found that the mortality benefit was greatest for the first decade after screening started.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
I agree, and I look forward to hearing the Minister talk about how we can take this forward. The UK National Screening Committee is still concerned about false positives, overdiagnosis and over-treatment. In 2012, Sir Michael Marmot chaired an independent review of breast screening, which found that the current UK screening programme prevents about 1,300 deaths from breast cancer annually. However, he also found that overdiagnosis meant that, for every death prevented by screening, about three women are treated for a cancer that they do not have. As breast cancer is less common in younger women, there is a concern that overdiagnosis would be much higher in that age group. False positive results can induce long-lasting anxiety and an unwillingness to attend future screenings. It is important that screening programmes accurately weigh up the balance between potential harms and benefits. I am sure we will hear more about that in the debate. It is a common misconception that breast cancer is not a problem any more, but more women die from breast cancers than from other cancers. We need to do more to look after women in their 40s and women under 40. We need risk-adapted screening to better improve our chances of early detection in the most vulnerable. I look forward to hearing from other Members and the Minister.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
It has been a privilege to open and close such an important debate. We have heard from many Members and the Minister about how important early diagnosis and treatment are for breast cancer, and how key it is that we tackle this issue quickly and effectively. We have also heard about health inequalities and deprivation, and how they can impact the take-up of screening opportunities. We must do more to address that. The NHS 10-year plan has committed to diagnosing 75% of cancers early by 2028, and the national cancer plan has a 75% five-year survival target for all cancers. This is an area that is very important to so many people across the UK, and we must do all we can as a Government to improve recovery and survival from cancer, particularly the most common type of cancer in women. I would like to finish by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, again and congratulating her on gathering over 106,000 signatures, which is a great achievement. I would also like to thank Lily Parsey, Sophie Conway and Lily Ewin from CoppaFeel!, Nele Gewert and Hannah Maybour from Breast Cancer Now, Cristina Visintin and Ros Given-Wilson from the UK National Screening Committee, and Professor Sacha Howell and Sarah Hindmarch from Manchester University for meeting me and my team before this debate. Finally, as always, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee, who work tirelessly every week to make sure that these debates go ahead in such a smooth and effective way. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit: People in Employment
8. What assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of people in employment claiming universal credit.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit: People in Employment
As the proud parliamentary lead for the Right To Food UK Commission, I have heard powerful testimony from workers employed by large, profitable companies across the UK who are paid so little that they are driven to hardship, hunger and dependence on universal credit just to put food on the table. The DWP assesses that 1.2 million people on universal credit are working to their capacity, with their income topped up by the state because their wages are so low. That figure has increased threefold in six years. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not be left to subsidise poverty pay paid by companies that employ more than 250 people? Will the Government require those companies to report on how many of their workers rely on universal credit because their wages are so low?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I join others in congratulating the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on having secured this extremely important, timely and useful estimates debate and on the work she does to scrutinise what happens in Northern Ireland and the work of the Northern Ireland Office. The Committee is exceedingly energetic and will be getting full value for money from the small ministerial team, as it did today and will do over the next couple of weeks. I shall begin by addressing the most important question that has been highlighted, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) just referred: the lack of an agreed budget. He has just reminded us that he thought the spending review was a pretty good settlement. The Chancellor set out that Northern Ireland would receive £19.3 billion per year on average over the course of the spending review period—the largest settlement since devolution in 1998. In addition, the Chancellor confirmed that the Government would be providing almost £750 million in additional funding through the Barnett formula over the spending review period as a result of decisions made at the autumn Budget and the spring statement. That includes an extra £373 million in the current financial year, 2026-27, and that money is available to the Executive. To pick up on one point, I am aware of the arguments about the funding in comparison to Scotland and Wales. I simply want to make the point that funding settlements for all the nations of the United Kingdom are underpinned by the Barnett formula, and it is important to remember that, for example, compared with Wales, Northern Ireland has benefited from generous funding from the Barnett formula in previous years. The UK Government—the last Government and this one—have also committed around £16 billion in funding packages and agreed financial flexibilities from 2014-15 right up to 2029-30 for the Executive to support public services and long-term investment. The Treasury has given a commitment to discuss a fiscal framework for Northern Ireland, where, of course, funding under the Barnett formula can be discussed. On the level of need, the fact is that this was independently assessed by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. The figure that it came up with was 124%, and that is indeed the level of funding that the Northern Ireland Executive are getting. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) recognises that fact. She rightly points out that, however much money is allocated, someone will always say, “Give us more.” How the money is spent has also been an important part of this debate, and I shall come to the remarks of the former Finance Minister, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in a moment. Let us look at what is achieved in Northern Ireland for the expenditure, with 124% of the funding in England. In England, about 4% of people are waiting more than a year to see a hospital consultant. In Northern Ireland, it is nearly 50%, with more funding.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
Of course I will give way to the former Health Minister.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I absolutely acknowledge the work that Mike Nesbitt has been doing in health, and it shows what can be achieved if minds are put to it. It is a difficult balance between, on the one hand, running the services today and keeping them going and, on the other hand, investing in transformation. In the end, however, investing in the transformation is the way in which we will be able to deliver better public services for the people of Northern Ireland. I share the concern that has been expressed right across the House at the absence of an agreed multi-year budget, which is creating, above all, significant uncertainty for the funding of public services. I have been talking regularly with the Minister for Finance, who clearly faces a huge challenge in trying to get an agreement, and those conversations will continue this week, because we need to get to a multi-year budget as quickly as possible. I said about a month ago that the Executive needed to come towards the Government and meet us halfway, and there are two essential requirements. The first relates to the fact that the amount of money currently being forecast as the overspend for this year is going up, beyond the level that we saw in the last financial year. The word “pressures” is heard frequently in Northern Ireland. People say that they have budget pressures. Well, everyone has budget pressures. Quite reasonably, the Government have asked what the nature of those pressures is. Are they absolutely unavoidable legal commitments, are they things we would like to do or are they things in between? Trying to interrogate and understand the nature of those pressures and to see what the Executive tell the Government about that is the first requirement. The second requirement is a plan for how we will move from this year-to-year crisis—which was very clearly articulated by the right hon. Member for East Antrim in his contribution—because we need to see something that will address this in the longer term. I am much struck by what the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council said in its report on the sustainability of the finances, published on 16 June. It said that “these immediate issues facing NI’s public finances reflect an unsustainable trajectory resulting from the underlying structural problems in the Budget. These structural issues are visible in the relatively high public sector pay bill, limited revenue-raising”— a point just referred to— “and persistent overspends.” Whatever the size of the budget that anyone has, we have, in the end, a responsibility to find a way of living within that and to raise more revenue if that is open to us. That is what all Governments must do. The current Government have done it in relation to the public finances, and the same is true for the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition to the funding I have already described, there is the £617 million from the UK Government that is going into the city and growth deals, as well as the defence growth deal, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), has spoken about in the House; the enhanced investment zone; and the local growth fund. A point was raised about the local growth fund. I recognise and accept that the change in the profile from revenue to capital has created a difficulty for the voluntary sector. That is why I met representatives of the voluntary sector and said to them, “There is unspent money in the PEACEPLUS programme; you can make a bid to that.” I think about £12 million is available in revenue. The Exec came to the Government and said, “We would like to keep £3 million of that for Go Succeed; we think it is a great programme, and we’d like you to carry on backing it.” We said, “Fine.” That left £9 million available in revenue for the economic inactivity programmes that the voluntary sector has been running. I said to the Executive, “How about putting the extra Barnett consequentials that you now have, including £373 million in the current year that you were not expecting, together with the £9 million? We could then enable those projects to continue.” That is an example of what can be done if we put our minds to it. The extra capital allocation in the local growth fund may in part be the answer to the question asked about the ports fund. A number of commitments were made in the “Safeguarding the Union” document. I remember a large commitment that Casement Park would be fully funded so that the Euros could be hosted. Well, no money was allocated for it at all. The previous Government were very free with the promises, but they did not do the work to find the money. No funding has been identified for the ports fund, but there is money in the local growth fund. I also point out that Belfast harbour has a masterplan, which I understand it is looking to self-fund, and that the Government have made available an increase in capital funding to the Northern Ireland Executive. If the Executive wish to put money into port infrastructure, they are entirely able to do so. Let me turn to PSNI funding. I once again pay tribute to the officers of the PSNI who, every time there is disorder in Northern Ireland, show extraordinary courage in protecting the public from those who are setting fire to buses, throwing bricks and burning people out of their houses. I had the chance to thank some of those officers when I returned to Northern Ireland the week before last, following the disorder. They are very brave. From memory, I think some 42 officers were injured in the recent disorder. I appreciate the financial pressures faced, but this is a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said that he thought it was a profound mistake to have devolved responsibility for policing and justice. I respectfully disagree with him. The trouble with the call for ringfencing, which we have heard from other sources this evening, is this: we either believe in devolved Government—the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland taking decisions about how the money is spent—or begin to move back towards a ringfence; once we have a ringfence for the PSNI, it will not be long before someone says, “Can I have a ringfence over here?” In the end, we have a choice to make. I believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the Government believe in devolved Government in Northern Ireland. There is a matter of principle here: the funding is available to the Executive; it is for them to decide how much they allocate to policing as opposed to other priorities.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I will reflect on that point. I do not know in what sense the right hon. Gentleman uses “remote”; if it is geographical, I agree with him entirely. I acknowledge that, as he said from experience, agreeing a budget is difficult in a power-sharing system. It is difficult. He told the House an interesting story about being faced with reductions in budget and it being possible to come together and agree one. All Governments have to deal with the financial and fiscal circumstances they find, but when we take office, we have a responsibility to fulfil the tasks that are in front of us, which include balancing the budget. He also made interesting points about conditionality. How do we ensure, in return for whatever support a Government give—we have seen a long history of lumps and bumps of money, restoration after collapse, and so on—a consistent, measurable path to balanced budgets year after year, and an end to boom and bust in times of crisis? We have increased the additional security funding, which, from memory, I think was flat for about 10 years under the previous Government. This Government came in and decided to increase the additional security funding. The point has been raised in the Select Committee about the comparison with the counter-terrorism policing grant that is available in England and Wales. However, if we divide the grant by the population, we get £19.42 per head of funding; if we divide the additional security funding for Northern Ireland by the population of Northern Ireland, we get £19.61 per head. When people ask why Northern Ireland is not eligible for the counter-terrorism grant, the answer is that it is getting the same funding per head from the additional security funding. It is for the Chief Constable to decide how best to use that money. Let me turn to legacy funding. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, speaking for the Opposition, is right that the sum was identified some time ago. It is actually £232 million, because £18 million of the £250 million has been set aside for part 4 of the legacy Act. In addition, the framework agreement, to be given effect by the troubles Bill, will enable the Irish Government to commit a further €25 million for legacy mechanisms. We are talking regularly to the ICRIR and the Treasury on a business case, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the caseload faced by the legacy commission is entirely the product of the piece of legislation that the previous Government passed.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
Well, it is entirely the result of that. The funding that was made available was the fixed sum to which I referred a moment ago. That is the first point. Secondly, the Department of Justice had put aside a sum of around, from memory, £50 million when the inquests five-year plan was put in place. It thought it would have 50 cases. A number of those, of course, are now not going ahead, and the troubles Bill proposes to restore nine and to sift the rest. Thirdly, prior to the legacy Act’s coming into law, the PSNI had about 1,000 cases to investigate; had the legacy Act not been passed, it would have continued to have to investigate those and receive requests for disclosure. The final point I would make on this issue—and I did make this point to the Select Committee when I was asked about it—is that we are looking in particular at schedule 4 to the Bill because Jon Boutcher makes the point that if there is a requirement to sift all the material to identify that which is of high security before handing over the files, that puts an obligation in place. We are looking at what we can do to ease some of the cost burdens, as hon. Members have said, as more people come to the Legacy Commission—and I hope more people will come forward. I will turn now to a couple of other points.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate on discussions I may or may not have had, and I will kindly resist the request that he has just made for reasons that I am sure will have been obvious to him when he wrote that question into his speech. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have discussed the internal market many times before. He talks about the firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Northern Ireland. He will find many, many firms that have stopped shipping stuff to Europe for exactly the same reason: the decision to leave the European Union. It is from that that all the consequences have flowed.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
The hon. and learned Member shakes his head. With respect, I am afraid that it is a self-evident fact.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I would indeed accept that point, if it was not for the fact that a decision had been made to leave the European Union when there is an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the fundamental problem that had to be solved, and none of the alternative suggestions would enable us to do this. I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) about the Muckamore hospital report. I think that every single Member of the House was deeply shocked by what we read in that report, and our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by the mistreatment that has been revealed. I think the answer to the very reasonable question that she put is that we all hope to see all the many recommendations in that report implemented.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I think the hon. Gentleman was responsible for establishing the inquiry, and I pay credit to him for doing so. The real way to honour those who have suffered is to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully implemented.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Office
I congratulate the hon. Member on having established the inquiry, because when things go catastrophically wrong, it is what we do about it that counts, and that requires an independent look and for the truth to be told. In conclusion, it is of course for the Executive to agree a budget—above all, for the citizens they serve. That is the fundamental principle of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I repeat what I said earlier: both myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are ready and willing to try to assist the Executive in doing that, but we need to see the things that I described earlier to be able to do so.
- Hansard source
Asylum Accommodation
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important that we have the means to help people fleeing really difficult situations, and that we clamp down on illegal immigration. The Minister is aware that the widespread use of asylum hotels has put a considerable amount of pressure on local authorities. We have a situation in which over 140,000 households are in temporary accommodation in the UK, with over 175,000 children sleeping in B&Bs, as the Minister knows. Frankly, asking asylum seekers to find secure accommodation, a job and universal credit within 28 days of receiving their statements is unachievable. That pressure goes on to local authorities, which are already dealing with a massive backlog. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did a recent report on the conditions in temporary accommodation. I would be grateful to know what conversations the Minister is having with colleagues in MHCLG to ensure that when our councils procure temporary accommodation, they are not competing with the Home Office.
- Hansard source
NHS Breast Screening
You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Vickers, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the debate and engaged with the petitioners. The UK’s breast screening programme is one of the greatest successes of our NHS. In Scotland, around 130 lives are saved each year through screening alone. The programme provides critical early diagnoses, improving treatment options and patient outcomes. Even in the worst cases, early diagnosis can give women precious extra time with their family and friends. However, the petition asks whether the current programme is enough. The screening used for those between the ages of 50 and 71 does not account for the fact that one in six people diagnosed with breast cancer each year are below the age of 50. Many more are diagnosed later, and tragically, diagnoses often come too late. Studies from the USA show that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer when they are under 40 are 40% more likely to die from their cancer, and in the UK, breast cancer is the leading killer of women between the ages of 29 and 40. Worse still, the charity CoppaFeel! tells us that when women present to a healthcare professional with breast cancer symptoms, they are “routinely dismissed”—no doubt as menopausal, as often happens to women—creating missed opportunities for treatment. Sadly, those missed opportunities will only increase with the rate of breast cancer in young women, which, as we have heard, is already increasing. Although rates of breast cancer are increasing in all age groups, the incidence rates in younger women are growing faster than the rates in older women. Those facts should lead us to ask whether it is time to reconsider our current approach to screening. I recognise that the petition’s proposal to transition to annual screening and to lower the screening age could present significant challenges for the NHS. Annual testing would require significant additional resources and patient buy-in, and younger women’s breasts are often denser and therefore harder to scan, which throws up more anxiety-inducing false positives. However, those challenges should not discourage us from doing more to support these women. Innovations such as the seven-minute risk assessments proposed by CoppaFeel! could help us to improve and expand targeted screening to younger women with a predisposition to breast cancer, and increased resources and publicity will drive up uptake among all women. To close, I want to recognise the work of CoppaFeel! and Asda, as well as the House of Hope in my constituency. The report CoppaFeel! published on the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on younger patients has informed many hon. Members in this debate, and I pay tribute to its partnership with Asda, in their Tickled Pink campaign. In Edinburgh South West last year, Asda Chesser donated £2,700 to the House of Hope in Gorgie. The House of Hope is Scotland’s first bespoke support centre for those living with cancer. It provides care rather than treatment, and supports women and their families. The centre provides life-enhancing support every day, and the impact it has had in just its first year of operation cannot be understated. The House of Hope would not be what it is without the commitment of its founder, Lisa Fleming, who, since her diagnosis at age 33, has been a tireless advocate for the cancer community. I am proud to call her my constituent. This morning, she and her mother—both are formidable—were on my Facebook page, trying to influence this debate. When I met her mother a week or two ago, I was reminded that when a young woman gets breast cancer, her loved ones, including her children and parents, are affected by it. That wider economic impact should be taken into account in our decision making. It is through work like Lisa’s and, I hope, a renewed commitment from the Minister to improve our screening processes that we can continue to take steps against this terrible disease. I feel obliged to put a question to the Minister, and I hope she will promise me this. The next time she visits Edinburgh, will she stop her ministerial limousine at the House of Hope and pay Lisa a visit?
- Hansard source
Asylum Accommodation
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for mentioning RAF Barnham, which is in my constituency—it is adjacent to the border of Thetford, and within easy walking distance of it. It was formerly a base that housed mustard gas during the first world war, and in the cold war it was the home of the RAF’s strategic nuclear weapons, so it has an interesting history. The people of Suffolk are a kind and compassionate people, and they understand the need to house those who are fleeing war and persecution. However, I saw a protest at RAF Barnham this weekend, so how will the views of local people be taken into account, and what exactly is the role of the local planning authority?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Baroness Morris’s inquiry into white working-class children has identified how, from early years to future jobs, white British boys on free school meals are falling well behind. How will Ministers, with all the reviews going on and all the work under way, review and incorporate this inquiry’s findings into their work, particularly in relation to jobs and skills?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T8. In the consultation on surplus flexibilities for defined pension schemes, the Pensions Minister explained that trustees could offer employers surplus extraction of pension funds on condition of restoring the value of pre-1997 pensions. In drawing up the regulations, will he ensure that trustees are required to commission an independent assessment of pre-1997 pension erosion, ringfence funds to restore full pension value, and restore pension value to members ahead of any surplus extraction by employers?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Many young people and children on disability living allowance end up going on to PIP very readily. While it is of course important that people get support, what work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that those young people are not written off, but given every opportunity to work?
- Hansard source
Job Opportunities: Rural Areas
The employment rate is 78.4% in rural areas, compared with 74.8% in urban areas, with job opportunities in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and scientific and technical sectors. Under this Government, economic inactivity among people aged 16 and over in rural areas has fallen by 0.8%, and through the new jobs and careers service we are providing more outreach in rural areas, including jobcentre vans, bringing employment support directly into rural communities.
- Hansard source
Job Opportunities: Rural Areas
The question was about rural areas. It might be interesting and helpful for the hon. Member to reflect how under the last Government the number of jobs in agriculture—a key sector in rural areas—fell by 50,000 while under this Government it has risen by 5,000.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit: People in Employment
The Department publishes data on universal credit and keeps labour market trends under review. In January 2026, 3.1 million people were on universal credit in employment, representing 37.8% of all claimants. Universal credit is designed to support people into and in work, allowing individuals to move into employment while continuing to receive support as their earnings increase.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit: People in Employment
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says and I commend him for his work on the Right to Food UK Commission. I know that many people who work very hard doing important work in sectors like retail and care do not earn enough, so at the end of the week there is insufficient money and they rely on foodbanks. I invite my hon. Friend to come and talk to me about this so that we can discuss what we might be able to do about it.
- Hansard source
Universal Credit: People in Employment
Yes, I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
- Hansard source
Child Poverty
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area. Through our child poverty strategy, we are already taking substantial action, including the expansion of free school meals eligibility, the removal of the two-child limit and the introduction of the £1 billion crisis and resilience fund. Actions in the strategy will lift 550,000 children out of poverty in ’29-30, and the removal of the two-child limit could benefit around 1,650 children in York Central.