Westminster Hall
Monday 29th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. Order!Jacob Collier to move the motion. A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I beg to move that this House has considered E-petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans. And it is a privilege to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the author of the petition. B Alton, who joins us in the public gallery, doesn't work day to day in the protection of animals, but rather provides a cleaning service for those in need who are struggling to keep their homes in order.
She documents this on her Instagram channel, clean with B, which has more than 2.2 million followers, which is probably just about the same as the minister, I'm sure. Um he's famed. And it's important here to note the distinction between abuse and neglect and out the awful situations that some animals find themselves in, vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse. Abuse is distinguished with intent, and there are some people who unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, which could be financial difficulty or mental that are less fortunate than herself.
And through deep cleaning homes, B has found out the awful situations that some animals find themselves in, vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse. And it's important here to note the distinction between abuse and neglect. Abuse is distinguished with intent, and there are some people who unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, which could be financial difficulty or mental distress. Those people are not the concern of this petition, which is focused on intentional abuse. The abuse we're discussing today, um, isn't the professional cruelty of organised crime running illegal dog fights or breeding operations which are well known to the police or abusive commercial practices in farms?It is more that hidden cruelty inflicted in domestic settings up and down the country, and B emphasized to me that her focus is on abuse committed in the domestic setting rather than commercial, and unfortunately, the most recent statistics from the RSPCA, who are the main investigative body for offences under the current legislation, confirm that B's experiences reflect the situation across our society.
In 2022, 400 pet owners were convicted on evidence gathered by the RSPCA in their investigations and I would like to put on record my thanks to the RSPCA, their tireless work in this space right across our country, the abuse of animals offends our deepest instincts of fairness and kindness, and these animals are utterly blameless and yet uniquely vulnerable. The more animals that be found in this predicament, the stronger her sense of conviction was that the current system for preventing animal abuse was inadequate, and one of B's most pressing concerns was her feeling that the system failed to prevent animal abuse from occurring in the first place.
In short, B'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 to this petition, the government has rejected those demands on the grounds that the current provisions are sufficient and I'll return to those points later in my remarks. I will. Thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I would like to thank.
She documents this on her Instagram channel, clean with B, which has more than 2.2 million followers, which is probably just about the same as the minister, I'm sure. Um he's famed. And it's important here to note the distinction between abuse and neglect and out the awful situations that some animals find themselves in, vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse. Abuse is distinguished with intent, and there are some people who unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, which could be financial difficulty or mental that are less fortunate than herself.
And through deep cleaning homes, B has found out the awful situations that some animals find themselves in, vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse. And it's important here to note the distinction between abuse and neglect. Abuse is distinguished with intent, and there are some people who unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, which could be financial difficulty or mental distress. Those people are not the concern of this petition, which is focused on intentional abuse. The abuse we're discussing today, um, isn't the professional cruelty of organised crime running illegal dog fights or breeding operations which are well known to the police or abusive commercial practices in farms?It is more that hidden cruelty inflicted in domestic settings up and down the country, and B emphasized to me that her focus is on abuse committed in the domestic setting rather than commercial, and unfortunately, the most recent statistics from the RSPCA, who are the main investigative body for offences under the current legislation, confirm that B's experiences reflect the situation across our society.
In 2022, 400 pet owners were convicted on evidence gathered by the RSPCA in their investigations and I would like to put on record my thanks to the RSPCA, their tireless work in this space right across our country, the abuse of animals offends our deepest instincts of fairness and kindness, and these animals are utterly blameless and yet uniquely vulnerable. The more animals that be found in this predicament, the stronger her sense of conviction was that the current system for preventing animal abuse was inadequate, and one of B's most pressing concerns was her feeling that the system failed to prevent animal abuse from occurring in the first place.
In short, B'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 to this petition, the government has rejected those demands on the grounds that the current provisions are sufficient and I'll return to those points later in my remarks. I will. Thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I would like to thank.
16:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The petitioners for bringing this really important issue to the House. Um, and I'm very sympathetic to it. But animal abuse comes in many forms. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also be thinking about the abuse that owners who are irresponsible with their pets?Um, what what sanctions they should face?Recently in my constituency of Stevenage, we had a horrific case of an XL bully attacking a man who ended up needing hospital treatment. Does my friend agree that people who cannot responsibly handle their animals are also committing a form of abuse, and should be treated accordingly?
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, I think that is separate to this issue, but I know that the legislation around XL bullies already exists, so we need to see that properly enforced. Um the conviction most used in animal abuse is made under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, with sexual abuse now covered by the recent Crime and Policing Act. If convicted under the Animal Welfare Act, an individual can be subject to up to five years in prison, and they can also be subject to a disqualification order issued by the court, which can prevent them from owning animals for the rest of their lives.
However, the specific terms of the order are decided by the court. The experts who I have spoken to in preparation for this debate, and thank you to Claire McParland, Doctor David Martin and Mark Randall agree that the current framework for legislation is a significant improvement on previous legislation that we've seen, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage, and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime, the government notes in their response that all offences under the Animal Welfare Act are stored on the police National database, and this data can be shared with the appropriate authorities and members of the public in specific circumstances.
However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive. Under the new. Under the current system and are an inevitable challenge of reporting is the reporting of suspected offences. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventative. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they assume that authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begin to investigate a report, they can request information from the police regarding any previous convictions.
But this process can be slow and there's no guarantee that police will release the information. So a dedicated national register would, of course make this easier. Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Doctor David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that that collaboration between the police and RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales and local teams know who to call when they have a query or when they come across instances of animal abuse in their day to day activities.
On the other hand, Mark Randall, who's a former police officer who spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, um, said that actually identifying animal abuse is not standardized across police forces. And the understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across this country. So we must recognise that considering standardising training, um, so that it isn't a postcode lottery is something that we should consider. In spite of these circumstances, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year.
And as noted earlier, while disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, this petition requests bans to be automatic upon conviction. This may work to reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register that was available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy like our own, we evaluate proposals for punishments of crimes, not simply based on how effectively it prevents reoccurrence. But we must also consider whether the punishment is proportionate and, in the case of automatic lifetime bans, this is unclear.
An automatic ban pays no regard to whether the victim is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, are they in a coercive, coercive or controlling relationship, or are they themselves victims of abuse which may drive them to inflict harm on animals?In such case cases, it's harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, and so an automatic ban may be disproportionate. I will.
However, the specific terms of the order are decided by the court. The experts who I have spoken to in preparation for this debate, and thank you to Claire McParland, Doctor David Martin and Mark Randall agree that the current framework for legislation is a significant improvement on previous legislation that we've seen, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage, and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime, the government notes in their response that all offences under the Animal Welfare Act are stored on the police National database, and this data can be shared with the appropriate authorities and members of the public in specific circumstances.
However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive. Under the new. Under the current system and are an inevitable challenge of reporting is the reporting of suspected offences. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventative. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they assume that authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begin to investigate a report, they can request information from the police regarding any previous convictions.
But this process can be slow and there's no guarantee that police will release the information. So a dedicated national register would, of course make this easier. Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Doctor David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that that collaboration between the police and RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales and local teams know who to call when they have a query or when they come across instances of animal abuse in their day to day activities.
On the other hand, Mark Randall, who's a former police officer who spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, um, said that actually identifying animal abuse is not standardized across police forces. And the understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across this country. So we must recognise that considering standardising training, um, so that it isn't a postcode lottery is something that we should consider. In spite of these circumstances, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year.
And as noted earlier, while disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, this petition requests bans to be automatic upon conviction. This may work to reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register that was available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy like our own, we evaluate proposals for punishments of crimes, not simply based on how effectively it prevents reoccurrence. But we must also consider whether the punishment is proportionate and, in the case of automatic lifetime bans, this is unclear.
An automatic ban pays no regard to whether the victim is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, are they in a coercive, coercive or controlling relationship, or are they themselves victims of abuse which may drive them to inflict harm on animals?In such case cases, it's harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, and so an automatic ban may be disproportionate. I will.
16:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Across Cornwall, there are dozens of cases of animal abuse every year. In fact, animal abuse is is a blight on our on our duchy. So I welcome the principle of the abuser register. But does he agree with me that not only should perpetrators be added to the Register, but the threat of custodial sentences should be strong enough to ensure that they know that they will be punished for their crimes.
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, I do agree that the threat of prosecution, um, we've seen that strengthened through the 2006 act, and that has actually aided with preventing abuse. So I think that is something, as the government looks to, uh, review the the Animal Welfare Act, that is something that they should take into consideration. Um, and for a ban to last a lifetime, it ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. And in this country, we believe that those who break the laws can be rehabilitated into a law abiding society.
Because 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 their own violent parent?A lifetime ban would mean that they'd be unable to have such a pet in their retirement. And in that case, it does feel disproportionate. And once you consider that argument 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.
Nonetheless, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent reoccurrence, and guidelines could be changed to perhaps make them time limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed. As for the National Register, the RSPCA have repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for them to access the history of an alleged offender and how this register works in practice must be considered carefully. Be herself once the register accessible to appropriate organisations but not the general public, and this would avoid giving rise to animal abuse, vigilantism, the like that we've seen spreading on social media.
In other cases, alongside the question of access, there is also the question of what information should be contained. A public register may not be as effective. Um, if it is just simply a snapshot of past offending. As 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 to relevant agencies.
A more useful alternative, therefore, might 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. This. This is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons for. 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.
He used that threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence. Violence is something that we cannot ignore and is key to this debate, and we do owe it to Holly to take action.
Because 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 their own violent parent?A lifetime ban would mean that they'd be unable to have such a pet in their retirement. And in that case, it does feel disproportionate. And once you consider that argument 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.
Nonetheless, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent reoccurrence, and guidelines could be changed to perhaps make them time limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed. As for the National Register, the RSPCA have repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for them to access the history of an alleged offender and how this register works in practice must be considered carefully. Be herself once the register accessible to appropriate organisations but not the general public, and this would avoid giving rise to animal abuse, vigilantism, the like that we've seen spreading on social media.
In other cases, alongside the question of access, there is also the question of what information should be contained. A public register may not be as effective. Um, if it is just simply a snapshot of past offending. As 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 to relevant agencies.
A more useful alternative, therefore, might 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. This. This is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons for. 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.
He used that threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence. Violence is something that we cannot ignore and is key to this debate, and we do owe it to Holly to take action.
16:42
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My hon. Friend makes a valid link between the abuse of animals and the abuse of human beings, and I'd like to thank the petitioner for bringing this today, because it opens a spotlight on both forms of abuse. The RSPCA have reported that 71% of domestic violence victims suffer from death threats to their pets, too. Doesn't this prove that we need to be more sophisticated in the way we record crimes of animal abuse, so that it captures the wider sense that these people are a threat not just to animals, but to their wives, their partners, and everyone else.
16:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, I absolutely agree with him, and I was shocked in some of the evidence that I heard in preparing for this debate about that link between domestic violence and animal abuse. And that's something that as the government considers the next steps, that really needs to be key to their thinking around this, I understand that the RSPCA are in discussions with the Home Office and Defra regarding a version of Clare's Law for animal abuse, and I'd welcome an update from the minister in winding up on these discussions. Um, in closing, in just three months, uh, bees signatures have gone over two 238,000 signatures, illustrating the depth and feeling across our country about abuse against animals.
This feeling, together with the expert opinion of organisations like the RSPCA, indicates that the current provisions against animal abuse are not adequate enough. An automatic life ban for convicted abusers appears to be a disproportionate response, though questions remain of whether disqualification orders are being used as frequently as they should. A public register of convictions is similarly unsuitable. However, a version of Clare's Law for animal abuse may strike the right balance, allowing appropriate agencies up to date access and intelligence when they need it to intervene before abuse is committed.
I would like to thank Bea for creating this position and allowing this necessary debate. And of course, my office is a prime candidate if she wants to conduct another spring clean. Thank you.
This feeling, together with the expert opinion of organisations like the RSPCA, indicates that the current provisions against animal abuse are not adequate enough. An automatic life ban for convicted abusers appears to be a disproportionate response, though questions remain of whether disqualification orders are being used as frequently as they should. A public register of convictions is similarly unsuitable. However, a version of Clare's Law for animal abuse may strike the right balance, allowing appropriate agencies up to date access and intelligence when they need it to intervene before abuse is committed.
I would like to thank Bea for creating this position and allowing this necessary debate. And of course, my office is a prime candidate if she wants to conduct another spring clean. Thank you.
16:44
16:44
16:44
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Can I begin by thanking Belton and all of the nearly quarter of a million petitioners who have brought this to the attention of the House of Commons. Today, we are a nation of animal lovers. It is an essential part of the British psyche. We were the first country in the world to have an animal cruelty charity, later realised as the R s. In fact, it was created 60 years before a similar charity with respect to children, which perhaps says something about the unique attachment that people have on these islands to our animals.
We were the first state to create laws against animal cruelty. In 1822, again before some very prescient ones with respect to humans and animal charities receive millions of pounds more every year than do charities for children. All of this tells you that the British love their animals, and I certainly do. So I'm here today on behalf of myself and my constituents in Newark and Nottinghamshire, to strongly back the petition and all that. Bea and her fellow campaigners have achieved so far.
It cannot be right that in a country like ours, with this deep, sentimental attachment to our animals, that we allow people who have been known to abuse animals to take charge of them again in the future. It should be the law of the land that if you have been convicted of knowingly abusing an animal, that you are never in charge of one again in the future. And so I strongly support the purpose of the petition today. And similarly, it is right that a register is created which is either in the public domain or at a bare minimum, is available to those who breed, who sell animals, who are the ones who are the ultimate guardians of animals, and then entrust them to others so that they can make sensible choices and not give animals into the care of those who are known to have abused them.
It is surprising that a register like this does not exist in our country already, and it should do. And so if this petition is a spur to the government to establish such a register, then B and a quarter of a million people, the length and breadth of the country who signed it will have done a very good deed, because it must be the case that we take greater care in the future over our pets and animals than we have in the future. It is obviously good for animals, but it's also good for us as human beings as well, because the tenderness that we show to animals in this country is something that we should celebrate, something I think we take pride in when we visit other parts of the world, which do not have the tradition that we have in our own country, and which in a sense is what I think Peter Singer described as part of the ever expanding circle of empathy, where if you treat animals in a way like this, perhaps it will encourage us to treat human beings in a similar fashion as well in the future.
So let me finish, uh, with that and saying thank you to be and to all of the petitioners and encourage the government to take up these recommendations to create the mandatory ban, to create the register that is available for all those who pass animals into the custody of our fellow citizens to ensure that we protect animals and that we increase and improve the world class laws that we have in this country with respect to animal cruelty. Thank you.
We were the first state to create laws against animal cruelty. In 1822, again before some very prescient ones with respect to humans and animal charities receive millions of pounds more every year than do charities for children. All of this tells you that the British love their animals, and I certainly do. So I'm here today on behalf of myself and my constituents in Newark and Nottinghamshire, to strongly back the petition and all that. Bea and her fellow campaigners have achieved so far.
It cannot be right that in a country like ours, with this deep, sentimental attachment to our animals, that we allow people who have been known to abuse animals to take charge of them again in the future. It should be the law of the land that if you have been convicted of knowingly abusing an animal, that you are never in charge of one again in the future. And so I strongly support the purpose of the petition today. And similarly, it is right that a register is created which is either in the public domain or at a bare minimum, is available to those who breed, who sell animals, who are the ones who are the ultimate guardians of animals, and then entrust them to others so that they can make sensible choices and not give animals into the care of those who are known to have abused them.
It is surprising that a register like this does not exist in our country already, and it should do. And so if this petition is a spur to the government to establish such a register, then B and a quarter of a million people, the length and breadth of the country who signed it will have done a very good deed, because it must be the case that we take greater care in the future over our pets and animals than we have in the future. It is obviously good for animals, but it's also good for us as human beings as well, because the tenderness that we show to animals in this country is something that we should celebrate, something I think we take pride in when we visit other parts of the world, which do not have the tradition that we have in our own country, and which in a sense is what I think Peter Singer described as part of the ever expanding circle of empathy, where if you treat animals in a way like this, perhaps it will encourage us to treat human beings in a similar fashion as well in the future.
So let me finish, uh, with that and saying thank you to be and to all of the petitioners and encourage the government to take up these recommendations to create the mandatory ban, to create the register that is available for all those who pass animals into the custody of our fellow citizens to ensure that we protect animals and that we increase and improve the world class laws that we have in this country with respect to animal cruelty. Thank you.
16:48
16:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
DoctorIt's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the honourable member on securing this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all my residents. In fact, I thank everybody who has signed the petition. And, of course, today in the chamber. I thank thee for bringing this to light. This matter deeply. This matters deeply to people across the country, and it matters to people in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.
People expect those who call suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal ever being put at risk again at home. Our dog foggy is a treasured member of our family, and I know that's how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us. They trust us, and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care now. I recently received a letter from a 13 year old constituent, specifically about today.
They contacted me because they were worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could later go on to have another animal. They could not understand why someone who had already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, and not not just because it came from a young person, although that certainly made it a lot more striking. But because it put the the matter so absolutely plainly, why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?There are important powers already available to the courts.
We've heard under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, some. Someone convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them taking part, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. The increase in maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was also an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question is the current system clear enough, consistent enough and practical enough to stop people who have been banned from simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal?A conviction may be recorded, 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, that answer seems far too uncertain.
People expect those who call suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal ever being put at risk again at home. Our dog foggy is a treasured member of our family, and I know that's how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us. They trust us, and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care now. I recently received a letter from a 13 year old constituent, specifically about today.
They contacted me because they were worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could later go on to have another animal. They could not understand why someone who had already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, and not not just because it came from a young person, although that certainly made it a lot more striking. But because it put the the matter so absolutely plainly, why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?There are important powers already available to the courts.
We've heard under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, some. Someone convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them taking part, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. The increase in maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was also an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question is the current system clear enough, consistent enough and practical enough to stop people who have been banned from simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal?A conviction may be recorded, 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, that answer seems far too uncertain.
16:51
16:51
16:51
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank him for giving way on that specific point. And while he's talking about those kind of challenges, I wonder if he'd agree with me that we need to close the loophole where banned owners can give their pets or their farm animals to their wives or their husbands to own, and they can still live with them, surely. Do you agree with me?That loophole needs to be closed.
16:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Absolutely. There's no place for loopholes like that in our law, in our country, in a place where we love our animals so much. The government has referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. Now, 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 a system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person from acquiring another animal. That is the point behind this petition, and it is a point we should take very, very seriously.
This Labour government was elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, troll hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the protection of animals after a cruelty conviction is strong enough. In practice, I believe there's a serious case here for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme. For those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans, that would not need to be a public database. It should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information.
It should be a proportionate and 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'm saying. Animal rescue and rehoming organisations. Veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether someone is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in someone else'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, animal abuse or neglect, and I understand why that has attracted such strong support for the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty. The protection of future 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 another 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's about prevention. Animal cruelty can also be part of a wider pattern of harm. We've heard that today it can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household that 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 a 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?And will the government publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last and how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?My 13 year old constituent was not asking for anything unreasonable.
They were 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. So for my 13 year old constituent, for me, for all of those who have signed the petition and every wonderful, beautiful animal out there that we love, I believe we should always try and meet that test.
This Labour government was elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, troll hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the protection of animals after a cruelty conviction is strong enough. In practice, I believe there's a serious case here for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme. For those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans, that would not need to be a public database. It should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information.
It should be a proportionate and 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'm saying. Animal rescue and rehoming organisations. Veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether someone is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in someone else'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, animal abuse or neglect, and I understand why that has attracted such strong support for the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty. The protection of future 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 another 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's about prevention. Animal cruelty can also be part of a wider pattern of harm. We've heard that today it can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household that 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 a 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?And will the government publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last and how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?My 13 year old constituent was not asking for anything unreasonable.
They were 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. So for my 13 year old constituent, for me, for all of those who have signed the petition and every wonderful, beautiful animal out there that we love, I believe we should always try and meet that test.
16:55
16:55
16:55
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Doctor Morrison, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I thank the honourable member for Burton and Uttoxeter for his opening speech, particularly the link between domestic violence and animal abuse, and I thank my constituents of Broxtowe for signing this petition and the petitioner for bringing this petition forward. Animal abuse is a particular type of cruelty and perpetrators should be made accountable for this, but far too often that is not the case. 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 is delivering the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a in a generation. But this is our opportunity to go further. The government could consider a register of animal abusers with an automatic ban on ownership for all those convicted of animal 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 in their on their emergency line, taking more than one call every 16 seconds.
I therefore can only support this petition today, chair. Though courts can disqualify individuals from ownership once convicted of animal abuse, there is no central register that charities, vets or businesses can check. If someone is banned from keeping animals before selling or rehoming them, or even employing someone to take care of animals. The government has said that a public register would not be appropriate because it would run the risk of vigilantism towards the person on the register. However, a closed register that is only accessible by, for example, pets, vets, breeders and charities could remedy this 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've also been made aware of an increasing animal abuse content be shared online. I can only support this petition, but let me end by saying that the vast majority of pets are not simply animals to us. They are members of our family and we recognise that animal cruelty is the exception. Despised despite it being on the rise, many pets across the country can safely rely on their owners for consistent care, safety and kindness.
But all animals deserve the best lives possible and I ask the government to build on the foundations that they've already set out in the animal welfare strategy.
This government is delivering the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a in a generation. But this is our opportunity to go further. The government could consider a register of animal abusers with an automatic ban on ownership for all those convicted of animal 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 in their on their emergency line, taking more than one call every 16 seconds.
I therefore can only support this petition today, chair. Though courts can disqualify individuals from ownership once convicted of animal abuse, there is no central register that charities, vets or businesses can check. If someone is banned from keeping animals before selling or rehoming them, or even employing someone to take care of animals. The government has said that a public register would not be appropriate because it would run the risk of vigilantism towards the person on the register. However, a closed register that is only accessible by, for example, pets, vets, breeders and charities could remedy this 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've also been made aware of an increasing animal abuse content be shared online. I can only support this petition, but let me end by saying that the vast majority of pets are not simply animals to us. They are members of our family and we recognise that animal cruelty is the exception. Despised despite it being on the rise, many pets across the country can safely rely on their owners for consistent care, safety and kindness.
But all animals deserve the best lives possible and I ask the government to build on the foundations that they've already set out in the animal welfare strategy.
16:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Morrison. It's a pleasure. I think, for the first time to speak with you in the chair. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Burton and Uttoxeter for introducing today's debate so thoughtfully as he always does. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I'd also like to thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to this petition. I appreciate that colleagues may have been hoping for an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I'm afraid today is not that day.
Now, it isn't often the case that we debate petitions started by social media influencers, but because of the determination of Bolton, also known as clean with V to her, millions of followers, myself included, we are able to debate this important issue today. If honourable members haven't watched these videos yet, then I will forgive them for being on their phones throughout my speech. B offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies, and sadly, she sometimes often comes across animals that have been neglected and had to live in awful conditions.
I'm very glad that B has used her experiences and her platform to bring this issue to Parliament, and I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, because preventing needless suffering of animals is something that I know unites all of us across the political spectrum. Last autumn I went on a ride along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looks like for them. My constituency is full of pet owners and who can blame them?If you live somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase, why wouldn't you get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together?I admit though, that I don't have a pet myself.
Not because I don't love animals, but because I know that I couldn't give one the time and attention it deserves. I often joke I've got two young kids and that is enough for now. To me, this debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right. It's a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie only reinforced that. Like many people, I'd assumed that most of the Rspca's work involves rescuing animals from awful situations.
Of course, they do that in tandem with the police. But what surprised me was how much of their time is actually spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spent hours following up owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example. They work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores that advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate.
One thing that really stayed with me from that day was that many of those cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of a relationship breakdown. Domestic abuse, as we've heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it does remind us that animal welfare is often connected to wider challenges in somebody's life. We also know, as we've heard, that the relationship can work the other way.
Campaigns like Ruby's Law have highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control. Knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. 9 in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals isn't separate from protecting people. Sometimes it is part of the very same task. That's why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals itself.
It relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors can't force entry into a property of access is refused. And that experience left me with one clear thought our system does a reasonable job of responding. Once abuse has happened. I'm not convinced it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As colleagues have highlighted, the government's response to this petition says that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals.
That's absolutely true. But rescue centres, breeders and pet shops can't routinely check those records. So somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming that animal have no way of checking whether they're disqualified. That doesn't mean that the law has comprehensively failed. It means there's a gap in the system. Yes, breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first.
Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we shouldn't be relying on chance or hoping that somebody spots what's happened after another animal is already suffering. Surely it's better to stop that animal being placed there in the first place. I understand the government's concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as colleagues have already outlined, a register available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over.
Not to name and shame not to publish personal information. Just to answer one simple question can this person legally keep and care for an animal?The government is also right. Yes of course.
Now, it isn't often the case that we debate petitions started by social media influencers, but because of the determination of Bolton, also known as clean with V to her, millions of followers, myself included, we are able to debate this important issue today. If honourable members haven't watched these videos yet, then I will forgive them for being on their phones throughout my speech. B offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies, and sadly, she sometimes often comes across animals that have been neglected and had to live in awful conditions.
I'm very glad that B has used her experiences and her platform to bring this issue to Parliament, and I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, because preventing needless suffering of animals is something that I know unites all of us across the political spectrum. Last autumn I went on a ride along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looks like for them. My constituency is full of pet owners and who can blame them?If you live somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase, why wouldn't you get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together?I admit though, that I don't have a pet myself.
Not because I don't love animals, but because I know that I couldn't give one the time and attention it deserves. I often joke I've got two young kids and that is enough for now. To me, this debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right. It's a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie only reinforced that. Like many people, I'd assumed that most of the Rspca's work involves rescuing animals from awful situations.
Of course, they do that in tandem with the police. But what surprised me was how much of their time is actually spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spent hours following up owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example. They work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores that advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate.
One thing that really stayed with me from that day was that many of those cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of a relationship breakdown. Domestic abuse, as we've heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it does remind us that animal welfare is often connected to wider challenges in somebody's life. We also know, as we've heard, that the relationship can work the other way.
Campaigns like Ruby's Law have highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control. Knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. 9 in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals isn't separate from protecting people. Sometimes it is part of the very same task. That's why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals itself.
It relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors can't force entry into a property of access is refused. And that experience left me with one clear thought our system does a reasonable job of responding. Once abuse has happened. I'm not convinced it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As colleagues have highlighted, the government's response to this petition says that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals.
That's absolutely true. But rescue centres, breeders and pet shops can't routinely check those records. So somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming that animal have no way of checking whether they're disqualified. That doesn't mean that the law has comprehensively failed. It means there's a gap in the system. Yes, breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first.
Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we shouldn't be relying on chance or hoping that somebody spots what's happened after another animal is already suffering. Surely it's better to stop that animal being placed there in the first place. I understand the government's concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as colleagues have already outlined, a register available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over.
Not to name and shame not to publish personal information. Just to answer one simple question can this person legally keep and care for an animal?The government is also right. Yes of course.
17:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I'm incredibly grateful to him for giving way. He's making such a powerful speech, and I didn't want to interrupt, but I was speaking with volunteers at the East Ardsley RSPCA in my constituency just the other week, and they tell me they have to endure abuse from people who accuse them of not taking care of animals because they've reported cruelty to them, but they don't necessarily have the powers to act. If they had access to such a database, if other organisations had access to such a database, that would solve that problem, wouldn't it?And would he just take the opportunity to commend the RSPCA in my constituency, too, for all of their outstanding work?
17:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, of course, Mr. Morrison. I will never miss an opportunity to thank the RSPCA, including in Leeds South West and Morley East Ardsley Centre. Um, he's absolutely right that um RSPCA staff and volunteers can often face abuse themselves because many people are rightly so passionate about protecting animals. But it's important that we remember that their powers are far more limited than perhaps many of us realise, and that actually they are as determined as anybody to do the right thing by animals. And we need to make sure that they are given as many powers as, as, as, as appropriate, but that we also support them in doing the important work that they do and make sure that the enemy is the people that do this, not the people who are trying to get away with it.
So the government is also right that judges should retain discretion over the terms of disqualification orders. Every case is different and rehabilitation should always remain possible where appropriate. But I believe that once someone has been convicted of egregious animal abuse, a ban should be automatic and have practical effect. This petition is not asking us to reinvent the wheel. The petition, the convictions already exist. The courts already have the powers. All we're really asking is whether we can close one obvious gap in the system, so that trusted organisations have the information they need to stop known offenders acquiring another vulnerable animal.
So I would say to the minister that if we can prevent even a handful of animals from suffering because of that change, I think it would be a step well worth taking. Thank you.
So the government is also right that judges should retain discretion over the terms of disqualification orders. Every case is different and rehabilitation should always remain possible where appropriate. But I believe that once someone has been convicted of egregious animal abuse, a ban should be automatic and have practical effect. This petition is not asking us to reinvent the wheel. The petition, the convictions already exist. The courts already have the powers. All we're really asking is whether we can close one obvious gap in the system, so that trusted organisations have the information they need to stop known offenders acquiring another vulnerable animal.
So I would say to the minister that if we can prevent even a handful of animals from suffering because of that change, I think it would be a step well worth taking. Thank you.
17:05
17:05
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Doctor Morrison. It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship. And I want to thank my friend from Uttoxeter. For bringing forward this hugely important debate today. And to petitioners and B Elton for getting so many signatures. So we're discussing this issue and also to Holly's family, who are turning an absolute tragedy into something that could have a positive legacy. I think that's a very courageous thing to do. Um, in my many years of working in veterinary practice, one observation has always stuck with me, and that is that people who show kindness, well, actually how people treat animals is often a reflection on how they treat those people who are closest to them, and people who treat animals with nothing but unfailing kindness tend to be some of the kindest people you'll ever meet.
And yet, you know people who are deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal. Um, it's often a warning sign that, um, they are going to that that violence is probably going to extend beyond the animal and into the home. Um, because you don't know what goes on behind closed doors. I will happily give way.
And yet, you know people who are deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal. Um, it's often a warning sign that, um, they are going to that that violence is probably going to extend beyond the animal and into the home. Um, because you don't know what goes on behind closed doors. I will happily give way.
17:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate him. Being a fantastic animal champion and the work that he's done on puppy smuggling is absolutely fantastic. Well, I just wondered if he'd agree with me that there should be, um, obviously stronger sentencing, but to those with a proven track record of serious animal abuse and harm, they should face complete ownership bans. Would he agree with me?
17:07
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We should be clear. As other members have pointed out, there's a very big difference between someone who causes suffering to an animal through a variety of reasons, like having mental health issues, through neglect, through, um, sometimes ignorance. And someone who deliberately causes harm to an animal because they have some kind of sadistic personality or they want to feel powerful. The motivation behind causing the suffering is very, very important in this debate.
And causing deliberate suffering is an indicator of someone who may well go and cause harm to other people around them as well. And as a vet, it's always very unsettling. If you're treating a dog. Uh, for example, with a broken rib, which could have occurred by a kick. And the owner's telling you that it fell down the stairs. I mean, that is a very unusual thing for a dog to do. And it'd be very unusual to break a rib as a result of that incident.
And the beyond treating my concern in those situations, beyond treating the immediate animal in front of you, does extend to the people who are living in the closest proximity to the person who's brought in that dog. And we know that sometimes, um, people will even coerce a partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. And on that note, I just want to pay tribute to organisations like Trinity and Winchester, which is a has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allow people to take their pets with them, because that is one barrier to people escaping that situation.
And I know cats protection and and Dogs Trust do have a very similar scheme and it's hugely important. Um, as vets, we're trained to recognize the early signs of disease so you can treat it before it becomes irreversible. And yet I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty. Sometimes it's the first symptom of something much more dangerous. And that's why I also take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Lynx group.
They highlight the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence. Today, I'm going to ask the minister to consider three measures. The first one is when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be capable of being disclosed under the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, commonly known as Clare's Law, where it is relevant to protecting someone at risk. If animal abuse predicts domestic violence, that information must be available to all those who need it. And the issue we have at the moment is often, abuse of an animal is prosecuted under animal welfare laws, and that doesn't show up when people are looking for history.
Historical um, allegations or convictions of domestic violence. Um, secondly, anyone convicted of sexually abusing an animal should be automatically placed on the sex offenders register. At present, such convictions under animal welfare legislation carry no referral to public protection mechanisms. So that means if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are also prosecuted under animal welfare laws. And there is no, um, there's no way of tracking that. They have a more highly likely to more high likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well.
So this is cannot be right. And it's a, an anomaly that this house should close. And thirdly, anyone convicted of abusing an animal should be deliberately abusing an animal should be prohibited from owning animals in the future. The courts should have the powers to impose long term or where appropriate, lifetime disqualification orders. So Holly's killer had abused animals since the age of eight and he had admitted it. And the RSPCA knew about this. But the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots, and we cannot allow that to happen again.
And so by clamping down really hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women and spouses and children and and animals from future harm. Thank you.
And causing deliberate suffering is an indicator of someone who may well go and cause harm to other people around them as well. And as a vet, it's always very unsettling. If you're treating a dog. Uh, for example, with a broken rib, which could have occurred by a kick. And the owner's telling you that it fell down the stairs. I mean, that is a very unusual thing for a dog to do. And it'd be very unusual to break a rib as a result of that incident.
And the beyond treating my concern in those situations, beyond treating the immediate animal in front of you, does extend to the people who are living in the closest proximity to the person who's brought in that dog. And we know that sometimes, um, people will even coerce a partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. And on that note, I just want to pay tribute to organisations like Trinity and Winchester, which is a has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allow people to take their pets with them, because that is one barrier to people escaping that situation.
And I know cats protection and and Dogs Trust do have a very similar scheme and it's hugely important. Um, as vets, we're trained to recognize the early signs of disease so you can treat it before it becomes irreversible. And yet I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty. Sometimes it's the first symptom of something much more dangerous. And that's why I also take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Lynx group.
They highlight the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence. Today, I'm going to ask the minister to consider three measures. The first one is when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be capable of being disclosed under the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, commonly known as Clare's Law, where it is relevant to protecting someone at risk. If animal abuse predicts domestic violence, that information must be available to all those who need it. And the issue we have at the moment is often, abuse of an animal is prosecuted under animal welfare laws, and that doesn't show up when people are looking for history.
Historical um, allegations or convictions of domestic violence. Um, secondly, anyone convicted of sexually abusing an animal should be automatically placed on the sex offenders register. At present, such convictions under animal welfare legislation carry no referral to public protection mechanisms. So that means if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are also prosecuted under animal welfare laws. And there is no, um, there's no way of tracking that. They have a more highly likely to more high likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well.
So this is cannot be right. And it's a, an anomaly that this house should close. And thirdly, anyone convicted of abusing an animal should be deliberately abusing an animal should be prohibited from owning animals in the future. The courts should have the powers to impose long term or where appropriate, lifetime disqualification orders. So Holly's killer had abused animals since the age of eight and he had admitted it. And the RSPCA knew about this. But the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots, and we cannot allow that to happen again.
And so by clamping down really hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women and spouses and children and and animals from future harm. Thank you.
17:11
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you doctor. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This has been an important debate and I thank be for bringing this issue forward through the petition. Among the many contributions we've had, the member for Burton and Uttoxeter set out clearly the background to the petition and the challenges with identifying and enforcing convictions of animal abuse. The member for Newark highlighted the importance and care that we all feel for our pets and animals, and the member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme raised the need to think about prevention alongside punishment.
Us are united in our shared belief that any case of animal cruelty is completely unacceptable. As an animal lover, I am deeply committed to doing what I can in this House to raise awareness, legislate and support efforts to prevent animal cruelty. I'm therefore proud to be part of a Conservative Party that has a strong record on animal welfare. From our time in government, where we pass legislation, including the animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act 2024, which bans the export of live animals for slaughter through to the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.
In addition, the last government introduced the Animal Welfare Sentience Act 2022. The Animals Penalty Notices Act 2022 and the Glue Traps Offences Act 2022. Mr. Muir's Doctor Murison. Allow me to mention one more piece of legislation, if I may, passed since the election in July 2024 by a conservative MP myself, the dogs Protection of Livestock Amendment Act 2025 shows our ongoing commitment to animal welfare. I was pleased to bring forward this legislation to update laws surrounding livestock worrying to increase the fine where dogs attack livestock, and to give the police more powers to investigate instances of livestock worrying.
And I am grateful to members from across this House who supported the passage of that bill. I will.
Us are united in our shared belief that any case of animal cruelty is completely unacceptable. As an animal lover, I am deeply committed to doing what I can in this House to raise awareness, legislate and support efforts to prevent animal cruelty. I'm therefore proud to be part of a Conservative Party that has a strong record on animal welfare. From our time in government, where we pass legislation, including the animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act 2024, which bans the export of live animals for slaughter through to the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.
In addition, the last government introduced the Animal Welfare Sentience Act 2022. The Animals Penalty Notices Act 2022 and the Glue Traps Offences Act 2022. Mr. Muir's Doctor Murison. Allow me to mention one more piece of legislation, if I may, passed since the election in July 2024 by a conservative MP myself, the dogs Protection of Livestock Amendment Act 2025 shows our ongoing commitment to animal welfare. I was pleased to bring forward this legislation to update laws surrounding livestock worrying to increase the fine where dogs attack livestock, and to give the police more powers to investigate instances of livestock worrying.
And I am grateful to members from across this House who supported the passage of that bill. I will.
17:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I apologise to move the debate for not being at the outset as I. As I've already apologised to you, Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to highlight the association between animal cruelty and domestic abuse highlighted earlier. Annette Bramley is my constituent and her daughter Holly is the. The woman who was killed by a wicked husband. Now. Now enduring life imprisonment, although of course, in a better age would have been executed. Um the that connection is proven.
Uh, huge numbers. I've got the facts and figures, and I'm happy to give them both to the minister and yourself, but I won't bore the the meeting with them. Now illustrate that a huge proportion of those who are cruel to people have also been cruel to animals. There is a association which would allow us to deal with risk more effectively. I have been working with the government on this, and I commend them for that work. But I wonder if the Minister can address it when he sums up, because it is important that we know where the government are on that work, whether it can be done with existing legislation, whether it will require further secondary or primary legislation.
Thank you.
Uh, huge numbers. I've got the facts and figures, and I'm happy to give them both to the minister and yourself, but I won't bore the the meeting with them. Now illustrate that a huge proportion of those who are cruel to people have also been cruel to animals. There is a association which would allow us to deal with risk more effectively. I have been working with the government on this, and I commend them for that work. But I wonder if the Minister can address it when he sums up, because it is important that we know where the government are on that work, whether it can be done with existing legislation, whether it will require further secondary or primary legislation.
Thank you.
17:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank my right hon. Friend for intervening, speaking so eloquently as he always does, and I will come on to the case of his constituent and pay tribute to the work that his mother is doing in due course, because of the widespread commitment and support to reducing animal cruelty, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and it's right for us to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar. Turning to the petition that we are debating today, it does not surprise me that it has received over 230,000 signatures, because I know it is an issue which many of our constituents rightly feel very strongly about.
In my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, 328 people have added their names to this petition chair. Existing provisions ensure that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the Police National Computer. This information can be shared with appropriate organisations at the police's discretion. However, there are some points that I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on. Can I ask him what assessment has he made of this arrangement with regard to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for example, is there consistency in decisions as to when data is shared?How regularly is data being shared and where is it being shared?And importantly, is it helping to prevent incidents of abuse?Chair, I want to now turn to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence because sadly, there is a link and perpetrators of animal abuse too often commit abuse to people as well.
This has been highlighted by cases such as the tragic murder. As we have heard of. Holly Bramley. Not only has this boosted awareness, but it has increased demand for a public register. I commend her mother, Annette, for turning an unimaginably difficult situation into a campaign that has honoured her daughter's legacy and is focused on ensuring the link between animal and domestic violence is properly recorded. The RSPCA has highlighted that 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in 2024, and 71% of victims reported a threat to their pets.
Figures such as this should give us serious cause for concern, and I would like to ask the minister today what steps he is taking to work with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure there is a cohesive approach to tackling this link between animal and domestic abuse. I want to recognise the important work that is being done by the veterinary profession to highlight this link, and on this point, can I draw attention to my register of interests?As someone who is married to a veterinary surgeon and as an owner of a veterinary business?Doctor Murison the work of the Lynx Group, which is chaired by Doctor Paula Boyton, former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, is helping to inform vets on the front line who may be exposed to cases that need action.
I hope the minister will join me in acknowledging the importance of this work and outline if the government is engaging with the veterinary profession, including the Lynx Group, the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to support this work. Pets are too often used as a means of coercion and control against those experiencing domestic abuse. That's why it is so important that anyone suffering at the hands of an abuser knows that support is available. Earlier this month, I attended the Cats Protection drop in in Parliament, where, among other things, they were highlighting the work of charities that provide temporary foster care for pets.
When someone is fleeing domestic abuse. That support can make the difference between someone remaining in an abusive relationship for fear of leaving a beloved pet behind, and having the confidence to escape to safety. Does the minister agree that these are exactly the kinds of initiatives we should be championing to raise awareness of this issue, and will he outline what steps the government are taking to improve public awareness of the links between animal abuse and domestic abuse, including the use of threats or harm to pets as a form of coercive and controlling behaviour?I am sure all members will encourage anyone experiencing domestic abuse or worried about animal abuse to come forward and seek help.
Police forces, including Cheshire Constabulary in my own area, have safe ways for people to report abuse and I want anyone listening to this debate to know that they do not have to face it alone. Help is available and I would urge you to reach out. If we raise awareness of the link between animal and domestic abuse and improve the sharing and recording of information, I believe we can identify abuse earlier, protect more victims and prevent further harm. Ultimately, this is what every one of us in this House wants to achieve.
While the government has said in its written response to this petition that it will not introduce a public register, given the number of U-turns that have been made thus far, I'm not certain if that position can be relied upon. What, however, is certain is that anyone who is abusing animals or using the threat of animal abuse for manipulation must be prosecuted and face the consequences for their despicable actions.
In my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, 328 people have added their names to this petition chair. Existing provisions ensure that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the Police National Computer. This information can be shared with appropriate organisations at the police's discretion. However, there are some points that I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on. Can I ask him what assessment has he made of this arrangement with regard to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for example, is there consistency in decisions as to when data is shared?How regularly is data being shared and where is it being shared?And importantly, is it helping to prevent incidents of abuse?Chair, I want to now turn to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence because sadly, there is a link and perpetrators of animal abuse too often commit abuse to people as well.
This has been highlighted by cases such as the tragic murder. As we have heard of. Holly Bramley. Not only has this boosted awareness, but it has increased demand for a public register. I commend her mother, Annette, for turning an unimaginably difficult situation into a campaign that has honoured her daughter's legacy and is focused on ensuring the link between animal and domestic violence is properly recorded. The RSPCA has highlighted that 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in 2024, and 71% of victims reported a threat to their pets.
Figures such as this should give us serious cause for concern, and I would like to ask the minister today what steps he is taking to work with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure there is a cohesive approach to tackling this link between animal and domestic abuse. I want to recognise the important work that is being done by the veterinary profession to highlight this link, and on this point, can I draw attention to my register of interests?As someone who is married to a veterinary surgeon and as an owner of a veterinary business?Doctor Murison the work of the Lynx Group, which is chaired by Doctor Paula Boyton, former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, is helping to inform vets on the front line who may be exposed to cases that need action.
I hope the minister will join me in acknowledging the importance of this work and outline if the government is engaging with the veterinary profession, including the Lynx Group, the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders to support this work. Pets are too often used as a means of coercion and control against those experiencing domestic abuse. That's why it is so important that anyone suffering at the hands of an abuser knows that support is available. Earlier this month, I attended the Cats Protection drop in in Parliament, where, among other things, they were highlighting the work of charities that provide temporary foster care for pets.
When someone is fleeing domestic abuse. That support can make the difference between someone remaining in an abusive relationship for fear of leaving a beloved pet behind, and having the confidence to escape to safety. Does the minister agree that these are exactly the kinds of initiatives we should be championing to raise awareness of this issue, and will he outline what steps the government are taking to improve public awareness of the links between animal abuse and domestic abuse, including the use of threats or harm to pets as a form of coercive and controlling behaviour?I am sure all members will encourage anyone experiencing domestic abuse or worried about animal abuse to come forward and seek help.
Police forces, including Cheshire Constabulary in my own area, have safe ways for people to report abuse and I want anyone listening to this debate to know that they do not have to face it alone. Help is available and I would urge you to reach out. If we raise awareness of the link between animal and domestic abuse and improve the sharing and recording of information, I believe we can identify abuse earlier, protect more victims and prevent further harm. Ultimately, this is what every one of us in this House wants to achieve.
While the government has said in its written response to this petition that it will not introduce a public register, given the number of U-turns that have been made thus far, I'm not certain if that position can be relied upon. What, however, is certain is that anyone who is abusing animals or using the threat of animal abuse for manipulation must be prosecuted and face the consequences for their despicable actions.
17:19
17:19
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
The pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Morrison. And may I congratulate the member for Burton and Uttoxeter for opening this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he has set out the issues raised in the petition. I also thank all honourable members and Right honourable members for their contributions this afternoon on establishing a public register for animal abusers and the automatic ownership bans. Chair, this petition has attracted significant public support, with more than 225,000 signatures, and that clearly demonstrates how strongly people across the country feel about protecting animals.
And I commend the tireless campaigning of bee and her supporters. As a dog lover and owner of Albert Attlee, a seven year old labradoodle who brings real joy to me and my family, I share the petitioners deep concern about animal cruelty, and rightly so. People want to see animals treated with care and respect. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I represent a party with a proud track record of delivering meaningful protections for animals. From introducing the Landmark Hunting Act to strengthening safeguards for domestic animals through the Animal Welfare Act.
Labour has consistently led the way in placing animal welfare at the heart of the government agenda, because we believe that how we treat animals reflects the kind of society we are. Yet we must also confront the harsh reality that animal abuse still occurs, often in deeply distressing ways that shock the conscience and undermine those values that we hold dear as a nation. Causes neglect, cruelty, deliberate harm continue to surface, reminding us that the protections we have in place, while important, are not always enough to prevent suffering or to deter repeat offending.
It is this reality that drives the strength of feeling behind the petition before us today. Now, where abuse does occur, we want animals to be protected. Offenders to be held accountable and to make sure further harm is not caused in the future. The challenge is not whether to act, but how best to achieve lasting protection for animals who share our first address.
And I commend the tireless campaigning of bee and her supporters. As a dog lover and owner of Albert Attlee, a seven year old labradoodle who brings real joy to me and my family, I share the petitioners deep concern about animal cruelty, and rightly so. People want to see animals treated with care and respect. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I represent a party with a proud track record of delivering meaningful protections for animals. From introducing the Landmark Hunting Act to strengthening safeguards for domestic animals through the Animal Welfare Act.
Labour has consistently led the way in placing animal welfare at the heart of the government agenda, because we believe that how we treat animals reflects the kind of society we are. Yet we must also confront the harsh reality that animal abuse still occurs, often in deeply distressing ways that shock the conscience and undermine those values that we hold dear as a nation. Causes neglect, cruelty, deliberate harm continue to surface, reminding us that the protections we have in place, while important, are not always enough to prevent suffering or to deter repeat offending.
It is this reality that drives the strength of feeling behind the petition before us today. Now, where abuse does occur, we want animals to be protected. Offenders to be held accountable and to make sure further harm is not caused in the future. The challenge is not whether to act, but how best to achieve lasting protection for animals who share our first address.
17:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
On animal ownership. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, courts can impose disqualification orders preventing individuals from owning, keeping or caring for animals. In the most serious cases. These bans can be imposed for life. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate sanction based on the specific facts of each case. This judicial decision discretion is not a weakness in the legislation. It is a strength, and this discretion is what enables courts to impose the strongest possible restrictions where they are needed, where ensuring fairness and proportionality.
Introducing an automatic lifetime ban in all cases would remove that discretion. Chair. I now turn to the proposal for a public register of animal abusers. I understand where there is public support for this idea and the reassurance it is intended to provide. However, there are already systems in place to both record and share this type of information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police, National computer and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information.
There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it, and that means relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding or public protection. A publicly accessible register, however, could create serious risks. These include the potential for harassment for misuse of personal data as well, and the more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the time. I also recognise the concerns raised by campaigns such as Holly's Law and Ruby's Law that members have raised today.
They speak to a serious issue the link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and coercive control. The government takes that link very seriously. Statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises that pets can be used to control, coerce, threaten or distress. A victim. Chair Defra is supporting a wider cross-government work in this area, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and I can assure members that I will continue that cross-government work. Our focus is on better awareness, appropriate information sharing, pet fostering, veterinary awareness, and stronger microchipping safeguards.
And that is why the right information must reach the right people at the right time through lawful and targeted safeguarding routes. I will give way.
Introducing an automatic lifetime ban in all cases would remove that discretion. Chair. I now turn to the proposal for a public register of animal abusers. I understand where there is public support for this idea and the reassurance it is intended to provide. However, there are already systems in place to both record and share this type of information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police, National computer and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information.
There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it, and that means relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding or public protection. A publicly accessible register, however, could create serious risks. These include the potential for harassment for misuse of personal data as well, and the more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the time. I also recognise the concerns raised by campaigns such as Holly's Law and Ruby's Law that members have raised today.
They speak to a serious issue the link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and coercive control. The government takes that link very seriously. Statutory guidance under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises that pets can be used to control, coerce, threaten or distress. A victim. Chair Defra is supporting a wider cross-government work in this area, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and I can assure members that I will continue that cross-government work. Our focus is on better awareness, appropriate information sharing, pet fostering, veterinary awareness, and stronger microchipping safeguards.
And that is why the right information must reach the right people at the right time through lawful and targeted safeguarding routes. I will give way.
17:25
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The minister. And I'm grateful for his indulgence. Given that I wasn't here for the opening. He's right, of course, about the sharing of information is critically important between all the agencies that both deal with domestic abuse and animal cruelty, but it may well be that the government need to weave this into their bigger piece of work. He'll be aware of it on risk and dealing with risk in a rather different way, reinforcing some of the existing guidance. For example, and possibly even statute.
We've spoken about Holly's law. That doesn't necessarily need to be a piece of primary legislation, but it does, I think, need to have statutory force and maybe statutory guidance is the answer in this respect. I make no, I don't prejudge that. I simply put it on the record for ministers to discuss with his compatriots in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice.
We've spoken about Holly's law. That doesn't necessarily need to be a piece of primary legislation, but it does, I think, need to have statutory force and maybe statutory guidance is the answer in this respect. I make no, I don't prejudge that. I simply put it on the record for ministers to discuss with his compatriots in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice.
17:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I know that he's a tireless champion on these issues, both meeting with, I think, the former safeguarding minister in the Home Office. Writing to Baroness Hayman following his business question last year. And indeed, I can assure him that officials are continuing to work across government on the points that came out of the meeting that he had with the Minister, and I will certainly take away the points that he has raised this afternoon. I will give way.
Danny.
Danny.
17:26
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I appreciate the minister giving way. And while we totally understand the need to have safeguards so that any disclosures don't use an excuse for harassment or inappropriate release of data, um, currently, given that sexually abusing the animal doesn't mean you're on the sex offenders register or committing deliberate acts of violence against an animal doesn't automatically mean that you would that that incident would be included in domestic violence disclosure. The way they are recorded currently, even if the police wanted to, that information is unlikely to even be stored in a way that they would be able to disclose it if they thought it was appropriate.
So would the minister be willing to meet or discuss about how we can ensure that these offences are at least recorded in a way that means they could be disclosed if it was deemed necessary and appropriate?
So would the minister be willing to meet or discuss about how we can ensure that these offences are at least recorded in a way that means they could be disclosed if it was deemed necessary and appropriate?
17:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank the honourable member for his intervention and the insight that he brings to today's debate. As a vet, so I'm very happy to take his suggestions and views back to the department. He will know that animal welfare is not within my portfolio. It's the responsibility of Baroness Hayman, but certainly will take back his suggestions and concerns and explore that further. I'm going to make some progress on my speech, but I'm certainly happy to take away the action to share this with my ministerial colleague chair.
We have heard in the opening of today's debate more broadly, the government is committed to strengthening animal welfare protections and raising standards across the system. That is why in December of last year, we published our ambitious animal welfare strategy for England. This strategy is not a short list. Short term list of individual measures, but a long term plan to improve welfare, prevent poor welfare earlier and support a more joined up approach includes practical action to promote sensible, responsible pet ownership, tackle puppy smuggling and low welfare, puppy farming, and explore further protections.
And that matters because many welfare problems begin long before prosecution is brought, and they can start with poor breeding, poor socialisation, lack of knowledge or owners being unable to meet an animal's needs. And by addressing those causes earlier, we can reduce the risk of animal suffering and reduce pressure on enforcement bodies later on. Of course, enforcement remains vital where poor welfare or cruelty does occur, local authorities, the police and animal welfare organisations all play an important part in protecting animals and holding offenders to account. As we have heard in the debate this afternoon, the RSPCA alone secured over 1000 prosecutions in 2024, which shows the scale of that continuing work.
And that is why the government's approach is both practical and preventative. We want to stop animals suffering wherever we can not only respond once harm has already happened, and that means helping owners understand their duties, supporting early advice and making sure that people know where to turn before welfare problems escalate. It also means improving traceability through stronger microchipping and better records, so lost animals can be reunited with their owners and irresponsible breeders or owners cannot avoid accountability. Chair. Taken together, these measures provide a clear direction preventing cruelty earlier targeting enforcement where risk is greatest and protecting animals through proportionate, workable and lawful safeguards.
In closing, I want to thank all honourable members and all members for their thoughtful contributions in this debate and for speaking so passionately on behalf of their constituents and for those that signed the petition. I want to commend the work of the RSPCA and all organisations that support animal welfare issues across our country. The government is clear in its commitment to protect animals from cruelty, neglect and exploitation and to ensure that those responsible are held properly to account. Courts have the power to impose lifetime bans where appropriate, and it is right that they retain the discretion to do so.
While we recognise the good intention behind calls for public register, the risks outweigh the benefits. Targeted disclosure remains the most effective approach. We are continuing to strengthen enforcement by supporting local authorities on how to utilise tools available to them more effectively. We will continue to deliver our animal welfare strategy, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across our country, and I look forward to continuing this work, working with colleagues and stakeholders to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
We have heard in the opening of today's debate more broadly, the government is committed to strengthening animal welfare protections and raising standards across the system. That is why in December of last year, we published our ambitious animal welfare strategy for England. This strategy is not a short list. Short term list of individual measures, but a long term plan to improve welfare, prevent poor welfare earlier and support a more joined up approach includes practical action to promote sensible, responsible pet ownership, tackle puppy smuggling and low welfare, puppy farming, and explore further protections.
And that matters because many welfare problems begin long before prosecution is brought, and they can start with poor breeding, poor socialisation, lack of knowledge or owners being unable to meet an animal's needs. And by addressing those causes earlier, we can reduce the risk of animal suffering and reduce pressure on enforcement bodies later on. Of course, enforcement remains vital where poor welfare or cruelty does occur, local authorities, the police and animal welfare organisations all play an important part in protecting animals and holding offenders to account. As we have heard in the debate this afternoon, the RSPCA alone secured over 1000 prosecutions in 2024, which shows the scale of that continuing work.
And that is why the government's approach is both practical and preventative. We want to stop animals suffering wherever we can not only respond once harm has already happened, and that means helping owners understand their duties, supporting early advice and making sure that people know where to turn before welfare problems escalate. It also means improving traceability through stronger microchipping and better records, so lost animals can be reunited with their owners and irresponsible breeders or owners cannot avoid accountability. Chair. Taken together, these measures provide a clear direction preventing cruelty earlier targeting enforcement where risk is greatest and protecting animals through proportionate, workable and lawful safeguards.
In closing, I want to thank all honourable members and all members for their thoughtful contributions in this debate and for speaking so passionately on behalf of their constituents and for those that signed the petition. I want to commend the work of the RSPCA and all organisations that support animal welfare issues across our country. The government is clear in its commitment to protect animals from cruelty, neglect and exploitation and to ensure that those responsible are held properly to account. Courts have the power to impose lifetime bans where appropriate, and it is right that they retain the discretion to do so.
While we recognise the good intention behind calls for public register, the risks outweigh the benefits. Targeted disclosure remains the most effective approach. We are continuing to strengthen enforcement by supporting local authorities on how to utilise tools available to them more effectively. We will continue to deliver our animal welfare strategy, which will improve the lives of millions of animals across our country, and I look forward to continuing this work, working with colleagues and stakeholders to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare.
17:31
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Jacob Collier to wind up. Thank you, Mr. Morrison, and I'd like to thank all honourable and right honourable members for their contributions. And I think it's great that we've had cross-party support on this, which I hope that bee is happy about, because that doesn't always happen in this place. But I think it was, as the Right Honourable member for Newark said, because we are a nation of animal lovers, and I think the point made by my honourable friend for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, that question that he posed, um, are the current systems enough to stop a convicted animal abuser from just simply buying another animal?I think the answer to that question is no.
And so when the minister talks about, um, a disclosure scheme is how the government wants this to operate, I think we need to consider how that would actually work in practice. As my honourable friend has said, and in terms of the honourable friend for Camborne, Camborne and Redruth, what he said about um partners being able to buy um pets, I think that is something, a loophole that the government should look at, which he didn't mention in the closing. And to my honourable friend for Cannock Chase, um I'm always keen to hear from him, particularly when he makes very insightful points.
And people think that it's me making them. Um. And what he said about trusted organisations having access to some kind of register, I think was very important along the lines of my honourable friend for Winchester. And I pay tribute to the work that he's done as a vet in this space. And he speaks with great authority. And the point that he made about motivation of people's crimes and why they're doing this, um, deliberate suffering and also trying to look at the warning signs, which can be of domestic abuse, which is also a theme that came out.
So I would encourage the minister as he investigates this area more closely that we work across government with both Home Office and also the Ministry of Justice on this issue, but I hope he has enjoyed the debate. And thank you very much for starting the petition and the half a million people that have been responsible for for signing it, too. So hopefully we've got some good action to take forward. Thank you.
And so when the minister talks about, um, a disclosure scheme is how the government wants this to operate, I think we need to consider how that would actually work in practice. As my honourable friend has said, and in terms of the honourable friend for Camborne, Camborne and Redruth, what he said about um partners being able to buy um pets, I think that is something, a loophole that the government should look at, which he didn't mention in the closing. And to my honourable friend for Cannock Chase, um I'm always keen to hear from him, particularly when he makes very insightful points.
And people think that it's me making them. Um. And what he said about trusted organisations having access to some kind of register, I think was very important along the lines of my honourable friend for Winchester. And I pay tribute to the work that he's done as a vet in this space. And he speaks with great authority. And the point that he made about motivation of people's crimes and why they're doing this, um, deliberate suffering and also trying to look at the warning signs, which can be of domestic abuse, which is also a theme that came out.
So I would encourage the minister as he investigates this area more closely that we work across government with both Home Office and also the Ministry of Justice on this issue, but I hope he has enjoyed the debate. And thank you very much for starting the petition and the half a million people that have been responsible for for signing it, too. So hopefully we've got some good action to take forward. Thank you.
17:33
17:59
18:00
18:00
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
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 this petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from all across the UK. The petition is titled Lower the Age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 and perform annually, and goes on to say lower the age.
For when women 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 eight years, and I have seen the rise in breast cancer in patients under the age of 40 increase. Early detection is key in identifying those aggressive forms of breast cancer. So I know that this is an issue which many people here and outside the chamber care deeply about.
Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from breast cancer every year. I had the privilege to meet 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 in seeing 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, and 1 in 7 women may get breast cancer.
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 who are outside the national screening age, and 1 in 6 are in women under 50 men to get breast cancer. However, this makes up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening when they are between the age of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are age 71.
They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but are not automatically invited. While 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. There is a breast screening pathway for those who are identified as NHS targeted. Very high risk.
It is also important to note that Nice guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women who are aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high risk groups. I will give way.
For when women 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 eight years, and I have seen the rise in breast cancer in patients under the age of 40 increase. Early detection is key in identifying those aggressive forms of breast cancer. So I know that this is an issue which many people here and outside the chamber care deeply about.
Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from breast cancer every year. I had the privilege to meet 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 in seeing 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, and 1 in 7 women may get breast cancer.
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 who are outside the national screening age, and 1 in 6 are in women under 50 men to get breast cancer. However, this makes up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening when they are between the age of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are age 71.
They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but are not automatically invited. While 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. There is a breast screening pathway for those who are identified as NHS targeted. Very high risk.
It is also important to note that Nice guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women who are aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high risk groups. I will give way.
18:03
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I commend Honourable Lady for bringing this forward. And 66 women every year that are diagnosed with this cancer. Unfortunately, each year does the invasive lobular breast cancer, of course, accounts for some 15% of all breast cancer cases routinely missed until it reaches an advanced stage. Hundreds of members of this House have backed the call for a dedicated £20 million, five year research investment into the fundamental biology of lobular cancers. It does the honourable lady agree that the Minister, and I believe she is sympathetic to this, must undertake a corporate advance screening technology such as the contrast enhanced mammography or MRI.
Into the NHS pathway for women with dense breast tissue or suspected lobular profile, government must grasp the issue and must do something now.
Into the NHS pathway for women with dense breast tissue or suspected lobular profile, government must grasp the issue and must do something now.
18:03
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I too, look forward to hearing the Minister's response on this issue. So 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 24, 25 and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade, championed by charities like Breast Cancer Now, who shared public figures, stories and personal messages. It.
Yeah.
Yeah.
18:04
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, and I thank you for the intervention and for securing this important debate on the matter of screening. I wonder if you share my concern on. The member shares my concern between the difference with first time attendees to screening and returning attendees to screening. The numbers are 89.1% and 63%, respectively. So I wonder if she has a view on how we can improve those attending their first screening.
18:05
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank the honourable member for his intervention. Screening is key, obviously, to this, and I think we have to be more perhaps bold and inventive about how we get people along to screening. Um, there have been many public health campaigns over the years. And when a campaign is undertaken, there is always a rise in attendance. And then when the campaign stops, it falls again. So I agree that that is something that we must and the minister must then look at in relation to this.
I will.
I will.
18:05
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. Makes a very, very valid point, and I wonder if she's aware that in Scotland in 20 2020 to 23, more than 3 in 4 women took up their screening invitations. But there is unfortunately a clear difference between take up based on deprivation, 64.2% of women in the most deprived areas attended, compared to 82.8 in the least deprived areas, and breast cancer survival rates reflect that very much because women from more deprived areas, in particular, are more likely to die at an earlier age because they haven't been for screening and they're diagnosed late.
The point about having innovative ways of making screening available to people is important, but so too is screening in their neighbourhoods. I wonder if the member agrees.
The point about having innovative ways of making screening available to people is important, but so too is screening in their neighbourhoods. I wonder if the member agrees.
18:06
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I fully agree with what she said. Um, it is it is unfortunately the case that people it's not just for breast screening, but at the same for for for bowel cancer screening is lower in areas of economic and health deprivation. And it is something that we do have to 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 modifiable risk factors.
And while screening is generally increasing, the NHS breast screening programme found that 1 in 3 women still do not take up the offer of screening. It is key that we continue strategies which promote the uptake of screening in lower attending areas. As we have just heard from my honourable friend, for example, through these awareness campaigns as well as reminder texts and mobile screening screening units and other and other ways. In preparing for this debate, I met with breast cancer now, as well as Coppafeel, the UK's only youth focused breast cancer awareness charity.
They also call for more screening of women who have a higher risk of breast cancer, as well as providing women identified with wraparound support. Key to successfully identifying those with breast cancer. Although mammography is not always the best diagnostic tool, and I think that we have to realise that, particularly for younger women and those with dense breast tissue. And so it is important to invest in other diagnostics, for example, MRIs, and to consider their capacity to be scaled and expanded. Younger women tend also to have denser breasts, which mammograms are worth at analysing, as the scans are harder to interpret.
This can lead to women having repeated scans and extended investigations. It is important to note that most European countries screen for breast cancer between 50 and 69, and although there is some variation in age ranges in frequency, for example, countries like Albania, Iceland and Sweden start screening at 40. Although breast cancer diagnosis for women under 40 are rarer and about 4% of breast cancer cases in the UK are 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 on going trial called age X, which is looking at the benefits of screening regularly. Women aged 47 to 49 and 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 in these trials is due in December 2026, with the final report in 2020 2031. So it will be a few years before we know the the findings from this trial.
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. I will give way.
And while screening is generally increasing, the NHS breast screening programme found that 1 in 3 women still do not take up the offer of screening. It is key that we continue strategies which promote the uptake of screening in lower attending areas. As we have just heard from my honourable friend, for example, through these awareness campaigns as well as reminder texts and mobile screening screening units and other and other ways. In preparing for this debate, I met with breast cancer now, as well as Coppafeel, the UK's only youth focused breast cancer awareness charity.
They also call for more screening of women who have a higher risk of breast cancer, as well as providing women identified with wraparound support. Key to successfully identifying those with breast cancer. Although mammography is not always the best diagnostic tool, and I think that we have to realise that, particularly for younger women and those with dense breast tissue. And so it is important to invest in other diagnostics, for example, MRIs, and to consider their capacity to be scaled and expanded. Younger women tend also to have denser breasts, which mammograms are worth at analysing, as the scans are harder to interpret.
This can lead to women having repeated scans and extended investigations. It is important to note that most European countries screen for breast cancer between 50 and 69, and although there is some variation in age ranges in frequency, for example, countries like Albania, Iceland and Sweden start screening at 40. Although breast cancer diagnosis for women under 40 are rarer and about 4% of breast cancer cases in the UK are 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 on going trial called age X, which is looking at the benefits of screening regularly. Women aged 47 to 49 and 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 in these trials is due in December 2026, with the final report in 2020 2031. So it will be a few years before we know the the findings from this trial.
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. I will give way.
18:09
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you very much for the Honourable Lady for giving way. I'm proud to have walked the walk in my constituency of Woking, and they have raised a huge amount of money and awareness, and one of the country's leading breast cancer charities, they are pushing for mammogram testing to be extended. Does she agree with me that it should be extended to the under 40s and the over 70s?That could have a noticeable effect on fighting this deadly cancer?
18:10
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Yeah. I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I do agree, and I'm looking forward to hearing the minister's response in relation to how we could take this forward. The UK National Screening Committee are still concerned with false positives, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And in 2012, Sir Michael Marmot chaired an independent review of breast screening which found that the current UK screening programme prevents about 1300 deaths from breast cancer annually. However, he also found that overdiagnosis would mean for every death which was prevented by screening, around three women would be treated for a cancer they do not have, as breast cancer is less common in younger women, there is a concern that this would be much higher in the age group.
False positive results can induce long lasting anxiety and an unwillingness to re-attend future screenings. It is important that screening programmes weigh up accurately the balance between potential harms and benefits, and I am sure we will hear more about this during this debate. It is a common misconception from some people that breast cancer is not a problem any more, but as we know, more women die from breast cancers than 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 those most vulnerable. And I am looking forward to hearing from other members today and to the minister's response.
False positive results can induce long lasting anxiety and an unwillingness to re-attend future screenings. It is important that screening programmes weigh up accurately the balance between potential harms and benefits, and I am sure we will hear more about this during this debate. It is a common misconception from some people that breast cancer is not a problem any more, but as we know, more women die from breast cancers than 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 those most vulnerable. And I am looking forward to hearing from other members today and to the minister's response.
18:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
If I remind members they should Bob, which they are doing if they wish to contribute. The question is that this House has considered. E-petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening. At this stage I won't impose a time limit, but if you stick to about five minutes each, we should accommodate everyone. I call the picture.
18:12
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire and Arran on securing this 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 can be found or may be found too late, or even have had somebody that they've lost, because indeed, 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, and have also taken the time to promote a simple message inspired by the Legally Blonde movie to bend and check.
It's a powerful reminder that awareness, confidence and early action can save lives, and I'm really glad that Epworth may also be turning the town pink later this year under Kim Penfold, who was getting shops at the moment to raise her to to join in and turn their front shops pink to raise awareness around early detection and screening. Now, this petition calls for routine breast screening to begin at 40 and to take place annually. And that is a serious and understandable ask. We must, though, be guided by the evidence as well as the strength of feeling, and the current NHS programme invites women from 50 until their 71st birthday every three years.
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. And we heard that earlier from my from my hon. Friend. Mammograms can be less accurate for younger women with dense breast tissue, increasing the risk of false positives, unnecessary tests and treatment. However, UK age trial findings 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 1000 women screened One life.
Millions of memories. So we cannot stand still. The question raised by this petition is therefore entirely legitimate. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm when Parliament can expect the UK National Screening Committee to consider the final Ajax trial findings, and how the evidence on additional screening for women with dense breast tissue will inform future decisions. Minister, we must also focus on the women already entitled to screening. Around 3 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.
It's a powerful reminder that awareness, confidence and early action can save lives, and I'm really glad that Epworth may also be turning the town pink later this year under Kim Penfold, who was getting shops at the moment to raise her to to join in and turn their front shops pink to raise awareness around early detection and screening. Now, this petition calls for routine breast screening to begin at 40 and to take place annually. And that is a serious and understandable ask. We must, though, be guided by the evidence as well as the strength of feeling, and the current NHS programme invites women from 50 until their 71st birthday every three years.
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. And we heard that earlier from my from my hon. Friend. Mammograms can be less accurate for younger women with dense breast tissue, increasing the risk of false positives, unnecessary tests and treatment. However, UK age trial findings 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 1000 women screened One life.
Millions of memories. So we cannot stand still. The question raised by this petition is therefore entirely legitimate. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm when Parliament can expect the UK National Screening Committee to consider the final Ajax trial findings, and how the evidence on additional screening for women with dense breast tissue will inform future decisions. Minister, we must also focus on the women already entitled to screening. Around 3 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.
18:14
18:14
18:15
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I recently visited the new breast care unit at County Hospital, where Michelle Elliot and Mr.. Gave me a really fantastic tour. One of the things they spoke about actually was having separate areas. As you walk into the breast care unit, for those that are having treatment for breast cancer and those that are there for mammogram because of the way that it could, it basically scares women from going there. If they're not if they're not confident that that's not what they're there for.
So would my hon. Friend agree with me that whilst more, more, more scans, more mammograms and better support are important, actually, something as fundamental as the building design is also integral to making sure that women do take up that offer of getting their mammogram.
So would my hon. Friend agree with me that whilst more, more, more scans, more mammograms and better support are important, actually, something as fundamental as the building design is also integral to making sure that women do take up that offer of getting their mammogram.
18:15
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
She certainly makes a really valid point. And the environment in which people walk into first actually does make a massive difference in terms of how you feel about continuing with potentially going forward with your with your screening. And I only went a couple of weeks ago with my wife, um, to one of those areas, she had a lump in her breast. And I have to say the, the warmth, the welcome that she got as we walked in was just so amazing. Put her at ease, put me at ease so I could then support her and actually made the whole experience as good as it could possibly be.
And I'm thankful to say that she's doing very, very well as well. Um, so I wonder if the minister could actually, um, just provide a bit of an update in terms of what the government is doing to promote, um, and ensure that those people that are valid and can currently go for tests actually do go for those screening tests, finally, 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 too often the chance to see children and grandchildren grow up. And that's why this petition matters. And that's why, ultimately we need to act upon it. Thank you.
And I'm thankful to say that she's doing very, very well as well. Um, so I wonder if the minister could actually, um, just provide a bit of an update in terms of what the government is doing to promote, um, and ensure that those people that are valid and can currently go for tests actually do go for those screening tests, finally, 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 too often the chance to see children and grandchildren grow up. And that's why this petition matters. And that's why, ultimately we need to act upon it. Thank you.
18:17
18:17
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Today, and I thank the honourable member from North Ayrshire and Arran for her thoughtful opening remarks, and I pay tribute to all of those affected by breast cancer, those facing diagnosis, their families and friends and carers who stand beside them. It is their experiences that make this debate so very important, and to my constituents of Broxtowe for signing this petition, I also thank the petitioner for starting the petition in the first place. I do welcome the government's ambition for the National Cancer Plan, and it commits the NHS to ensuring that by 2035, 75% of people diagnosed with cancer will be cancer free and living well after five years, five years after diagnosis.
The plan will also develop further AI assisted interpretation of images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and will help us to assist us to detect breast cancer for women under 50. Those with a more dense breast tissue. Under the last government, cancer performance targets have not been met since 2014, leaving too many women facing delays and poor health outcomes. However, I know that my constituents in Broxtowe want this government to go further and to include women aged 40 to be routinely invited for breast cancer screening because, according to Coppafeel, cases of breast cancer in under 50 is on the rise.
And a recent report states that we have seen a 5% increase in the last year. Patients under 50 are more likely to have their symptoms missed and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage in their cancer journey, compared to those over 50. This issue is even more pronounced for women from minority and ethnic backgrounds, and from those and for those from deprived and rural areas who have less access to screening opportunities within their communities. Therefore, additional public health attention needs to be paid to this.
And according to breast cancer research, there are 10% more likely to begin treatment after the cancer has already become invasive, as well as being 20% more likely to require a mastectomy. So to achieve our cancer outcome aspirations, I ask the minister to extend routine mammogram invitations to women from the age of 40, and I hope the minister will also consider the roll out of alternative diagnostic measures that will affect the diagnosis of younger women.
The plan will also develop further AI assisted interpretation of images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and will help us to assist us to detect breast cancer for women under 50. Those with a more dense breast tissue. Under the last government, cancer performance targets have not been met since 2014, leaving too many women facing delays and poor health outcomes. However, I know that my constituents in Broxtowe want this government to go further and to include women aged 40 to be routinely invited for breast cancer screening because, according to Coppafeel, cases of breast cancer in under 50 is on the rise.
And a recent report states that we have seen a 5% increase in the last year. Patients under 50 are more likely to have their symptoms missed and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage in their cancer journey, compared to those over 50. This issue is even more pronounced for women from minority and ethnic backgrounds, and from those and for those from deprived and rural areas who have less access to screening opportunities within their communities. Therefore, additional public health attention needs to be paid to this.
And according to breast cancer research, there are 10% more likely to begin treatment after the cancer has already become invasive, as well as being 20% more likely to require a mastectomy. So to achieve our cancer outcome aspirations, I ask the minister to extend routine mammogram invitations to women from the age of 40, and I hope the minister will also consider the roll out of alternative diagnostic measures that will affect the diagnosis of younger women.
18:19
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. Mr.. Jefferson. It's a pleasure to serve. Can I thank the honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing this important debate?On behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am also a member. Cancer is, of course, an issue that touches most of us nearly every single day, as we have no doubt all experienced a friend or a family, loved one who has had cancer. And I'm grateful that this petition has given us all the opportunity to debate such an important issue.
And on a personal note, this is an extremely poignant debate for me as I lost two friends to cancer at the end of last year. Russell Brown, who served the woefully as a district councillor on Bradford Council, and Chris Graham, who was a former Keighley town councillor who served the long. Lee and Parkwood wards. And I know that their losses, their recent losses, are still being felt very much across the communities, which I am lucky enough to represent. I know that we have had several opportunities to debate the issue of cancer in this place, and rightly so.
Today's debate is particularly important given that breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in the United Kingdom, and the second most common cancer overall, with around 60,000 new cases each year. Unfortunately, around 11,200 deaths each year, which equates to about 31 deaths every single day, which is, of course, far too many. Which is why this petition is so important. Calling for early diagnosis, which is crucial, as has been outlined by many members, because, according to Cancer Research UK, 76.6% of women survive for ten years or more after being diagnosed and 85% of those are diagnosed at an early stage.
So I agree with the petition, and I'd like to thank Gemma Reeds for bringing this petition to this. Debate, and also all of the petitioners that have kindly put their name to it, including those across Keighley and Ilkley in my constituency, because it is right to call for early screening at the age of 40. And there is, of course, compelling evidence that early detection saves lives. Breast cancer is identified at an early stage, are genuinely smaller, less likely to have spread and require less aggressive treatment.
So early diagnosis and early screening is key. Not only can early diagnosis improve survival rates, but it also reduces the physical and psychological burden associated with advanced diagnosis and the disease spreading. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that screening for breast cancer is not a one size fits all approach. Screening for younger women generally produces less accurate mammograms because the tissue is denser, making cancers more difficult to detect and increasing the risk of false positives. But it does happen, and that is why I again repeat the call of the petitioners that early diagnosis is key and incredibly important.
My own sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36, and having gone through chemotherapy, radiotherapy and having surgery, I'm pleased to say that she was on the mend. But it is again another example of an individual being diagnosed before the age of 40. And therefore, Mr. Chairman, that's why I think it is right that if there is a historic family association with breast cancer, that those that are under 40 have the opportunity of getting that early diagnosis. And of course, I agree with the petitioners as well that having a repeat opportunity of screening for annual check ups rather than every three years is, of course, important.
Now, access to screening is not just about age, Mr. Chairman. It's about ensuring that those who are eligible for screening are aware of it and choose to take part. And I have major concerns about the lack of uptake across certain groups. It is, as has already been expressed in this debate, the least deprived areas that we know 81% uptake for breast cancer screening takes place, compared to 56% in the most deprived areas. So I'd be keen to understand from the minister who I know cares deeply about this issue, and I would commend the Minister for the work that she has done on this cause, and I know it is deep to her, her heart.
But I'd like to understand from the minister how the government are looking to tackle this discrepancy.
And on a personal note, this is an extremely poignant debate for me as I lost two friends to cancer at the end of last year. Russell Brown, who served the woefully as a district councillor on Bradford Council, and Chris Graham, who was a former Keighley town councillor who served the long. Lee and Parkwood wards. And I know that their losses, their recent losses, are still being felt very much across the communities, which I am lucky enough to represent. I know that we have had several opportunities to debate the issue of cancer in this place, and rightly so.
Today's debate is particularly important given that breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in the United Kingdom, and the second most common cancer overall, with around 60,000 new cases each year. Unfortunately, around 11,200 deaths each year, which equates to about 31 deaths every single day, which is, of course, far too many. Which is why this petition is so important. Calling for early diagnosis, which is crucial, as has been outlined by many members, because, according to Cancer Research UK, 76.6% of women survive for ten years or more after being diagnosed and 85% of those are diagnosed at an early stage.
So I agree with the petition, and I'd like to thank Gemma Reeds for bringing this petition to this. Debate, and also all of the petitioners that have kindly put their name to it, including those across Keighley and Ilkley in my constituency, because it is right to call for early screening at the age of 40. And there is, of course, compelling evidence that early detection saves lives. Breast cancer is identified at an early stage, are genuinely smaller, less likely to have spread and require less aggressive treatment.
So early diagnosis and early screening is key. Not only can early diagnosis improve survival rates, but it also reduces the physical and psychological burden associated with advanced diagnosis and the disease spreading. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that screening for breast cancer is not a one size fits all approach. Screening for younger women generally produces less accurate mammograms because the tissue is denser, making cancers more difficult to detect and increasing the risk of false positives. But it does happen, and that is why I again repeat the call of the petitioners that early diagnosis is key and incredibly important.
My own sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36, and having gone through chemotherapy, radiotherapy and having surgery, I'm pleased to say that she was on the mend. But it is again another example of an individual being diagnosed before the age of 40. And therefore, Mr. Chairman, that's why I think it is right that if there is a historic family association with breast cancer, that those that are under 40 have the opportunity of getting that early diagnosis. And of course, I agree with the petitioners as well that having a repeat opportunity of screening for annual check ups rather than every three years is, of course, important.
Now, access to screening is not just about age, Mr. Chairman. It's about ensuring that those who are eligible for screening are aware of it and choose to take part. And I have major concerns about the lack of uptake across certain groups. It is, as has already been expressed in this debate, the least deprived areas that we know 81% uptake for breast cancer screening takes place, compared to 56% in the most deprived areas. So I'd be keen to understand from the minister who I know cares deeply about this issue, and I would commend the Minister for the work that she has done on this cause, and I know it is deep to her, her heart.
But I'd like to understand from the minister how the government are looking to tackle this discrepancy.
18:24
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Or an annual screening program to roll out, rather than just that of every three years. Ultimately, I know that all of us are participating in this debate, share the objectives of reducing deaths from breast cancer, and ensuring that women receive the best possible care. But that cannot be done without a fully funded long term workforce plan. And alongside a clear funded milestone showing how and when patients will see improvement. Mr. chairman, I would like to put on record my thanks for the incredible work of the volunteers, campaigners and professionals who work tirelessly to help and support patients.
This includes the mobile cancer screening units that operate within my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale Hospital team. But I would like to understand whether there is a plan from the government under the ten year plan that has been rolled out and will continue to roll out for the NHS ten year plan. Whether or not this is part of the government's ambition. Because I feel that this petition is poignant, is asking for the right things from the government and it does have my backing.
Based on the amount of correspondence which I've received from petitioners and residents across my constituency in Keighley and Ilkley.
This includes the mobile cancer screening units that operate within my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale Hospital team. But I would like to understand whether there is a plan from the government under the ten year plan that has been rolled out and will continue to roll out for the NHS ten year plan. Whether or not this is part of the government's ambition. Because I feel that this petition is poignant, is asking for the right things from the government and it does have my backing.
Based on the amount of correspondence which I've received from petitioners and residents across my constituency in Keighley and Ilkley.
18:25
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you. You won't be surprised to hear that it's a pleasure to serve under you today, and I do thank my hon. Friend from North Ayrshire and Arran 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. Each year, around 130 lives are saved by screening alone. The programme provides critical early diagnosis, improving treatment options and outcomes for patients.
Even in the worst cases, earlier diagnosis can give women precious extra time with their family and their friends. However, the petition before us today asks if this is enough. The screening using the screening used between the ages of 50 and 71. Does not account for the 1 in 6 people diagnosed with breast cancer each year below 50. And there will be many more whose diagnosis comes later. And tragically. Often these diagnoses do come too late.
Studies from the USA show that women diagnosed with breast cancer under 40 are 40% more likely to die from their cancer. And in the UK, breast cancer is the leading killer of women between 29 and 40. Worse still, when women present to a health care professional with breast cancer symptoms, the charity Coppafeel tells us that they are often routinely dismissed. No doubt dismissed, as menopausal, which seems to often happen to women. Creating this creates missed opportunities for treatment. These missed opportunities will sadly only increase as the rate of breast cancer among younger women increases.
And we have already heard that that is happening. While rates of breast cancer are increasing in all age groups, the incidence rates in younger women are growing faster than older. 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 of transitioning to annual screening and lowering the screening age could represent significant challenges to the NHS. Annual testing would require significant additional resources and patient buy in. Younger women's breasts are often denser and therefore harder to scan, throwing up more anxiety inducing false positives.
However, these are simply challenges that should not discourage us for wanting to do more to support those women. Innovations like copper fuels seven minute risk assessments could help us to improve and expand targeted screening. Screening to younger women. With pre disposition to breast cancer and increased resources and publicity in this area will only drive up uptake amongst all women. To close, I want to recognise the work being done by Coppafeel. Asda and also the House of Hope in my constituency.
Copperfields report into the impact of breast cancer diagnosis on younger patients have informed many of us here today. And I pay tribute to the organisation's partnership with Asda and their Tickled Pink campaign in south West. Last year, Asda Cheshire donated £2,700 to the House of Hope in Gorgie. It is Scotland's first bespoke support centre for those living with cancer, and it provides care rather than treatment. It is about supporting women and their families every day. The centre provides life enhancing support and its impact is just in just its first year of operation cannot be understated.
The House of Hope would would also not be what it was without the commitment of its founder, Lisa Fleming, who, since her diagnosis at 33, has been a tireless advocate for the cancer community. I am proud to call her my constituent. Both she and her mother were on my Facebook page this morning, trying to influence this debate. Both are formidable, but when I met her mother a week or two ago, it was a reminder that when a young woman does get breast cancer, it is a loved ones, our children and also our parents that are affected by it.
And I think that wider economic impact should be taken into account in our decision making. It is through work like Lisa's and, and I hope, a renewed commitment from the minister to improving our screening processes that we can continue to make the steps against this terrible disease. I do feel obliged to have a question for the minister, so I hope she will promise me that the next time she visits Edinburgh, she will stop her ministerial limousine at the house, Hope, House of Hope and pay her a visit.
Thank you, Mr. Vickers.
Even in the worst cases, earlier diagnosis can give women precious extra time with their family and their friends. However, the petition before us today asks if this is enough. The screening using the screening used between the ages of 50 and 71. Does not account for the 1 in 6 people diagnosed with breast cancer each year below 50. And there will be many more whose diagnosis comes later. And tragically. Often these diagnoses do come too late.
Studies from the USA show that women diagnosed with breast cancer under 40 are 40% more likely to die from their cancer. And in the UK, breast cancer is the leading killer of women between 29 and 40. Worse still, when women present to a health care professional with breast cancer symptoms, the charity Coppafeel tells us that they are often routinely dismissed. No doubt dismissed, as menopausal, which seems to often happen to women. Creating this creates missed opportunities for treatment. These missed opportunities will sadly only increase as the rate of breast cancer among younger women increases.
And we have already heard that that is happening. While rates of breast cancer are increasing in all age groups, the incidence rates in younger women are growing faster than older. 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 of transitioning to annual screening and lowering the screening age could represent significant challenges to the NHS. Annual testing would require significant additional resources and patient buy in. Younger women's breasts are often denser and therefore harder to scan, throwing up more anxiety inducing false positives.
However, these are simply challenges that should not discourage us for wanting to do more to support those women. Innovations like copper fuels seven minute risk assessments could help us to improve and expand targeted screening. Screening to younger women. With pre disposition to breast cancer and increased resources and publicity in this area will only drive up uptake amongst all women. To close, I want to recognise the work being done by Coppafeel. Asda and also the House of Hope in my constituency.
Copperfields report into the impact of breast cancer diagnosis on younger patients have informed many of us here today. And I pay tribute to the organisation's partnership with Asda and their Tickled Pink campaign in south West. Last year, Asda Cheshire donated £2,700 to the House of Hope in Gorgie. It is Scotland's first bespoke support centre for those living with cancer, and it provides care rather than treatment. It is about supporting women and their families every day. The centre provides life enhancing support and its impact is just in just its first year of operation cannot be understated.
The House of Hope would would also not be what it was without the commitment of its founder, Lisa Fleming, who, since her diagnosis at 33, has been a tireless advocate for the cancer community. I am proud to call her my constituent. Both she and her mother were on my Facebook page this morning, trying to influence this debate. Both are formidable, but when I met her mother a week or two ago, it was a reminder that when a young woman does get breast cancer, it is a loved ones, our children and also our parents that are affected by it.
And I think that wider economic impact should be taken into account in our decision making. It is through work like Lisa's and, and I hope, a renewed commitment from the minister to improving our screening processes that we can continue to make the steps against this terrible disease. I do feel obliged to have a question for the minister, so I hope she will promise me that the next time she visits Edinburgh, she will stop her ministerial limousine at the house, Hope, House of Hope and pay her a visit.
Thank you, Mr. Vickers.
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
18:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The honourable member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing this very important debate. And the Minister for attending the debate today. I'd also like to congratulate Jemma Taylor for. Organising this well-supported petition and for her campaigning on this very important issue. Being diagnosed with breast cancer is bewildering and terrifying experience for far too many people. As many of us know, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK. Around 6000 people are diagnosed every year, and 1 in 7 women will receive a diagnosis during their lifetime.
Early diagnosis is crucial. Detecting breast cancer sooner gives people the best chance of successful treatment and ultimately saving lives. In my own case, I had to visit my GP twice before receiving a diagnosis. Between visits to the GP, the cancer spread to my lymph glands, the result of spreading to my lymph glands still causes issues for me today. 18 years later. But thankfully my treatment was successful. But many others are not so fortunate because of delays in diagnosis.
More than 95% of people diagnosed at stage one survive for at least five years, compared to around 25% diagnosed at stage four. That is why breast screening is so important. The Marmot Review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1300 deaths every year, yet uptake remains too low, particularly in England, where rates lag behind both the devolved nations and pre-pandemic levels. Almost 30% of eligible women are not attending screening appointments. Around 600,000 women are missing the opportunity for early detection.
Research by Cancer Research UK found that concerns about pain are the most common barrier to attending. Others miss invitations, struggle to find the time or remain unconvinced of the benefits. Uptake is even lower in deprived communities, worsening existing inequalities in cancer outcomes in England in 2025, screening uptake was 65% in the most deprived areas, compared with 75% in the least deprived areas. The government needs to work on ideas to improve access to screening, particularly where uptake is the lowest. Simple measures such as follow up invitations, cultural appropriate information and community based pop up screening services could make a real difference by meeting people where they are, and at times that work for them.
Will the minister outline what plans the government might have to increase screening uptake, particularly through community based services?However, improving uptake alone is not enough. Serious workforce shortages and outdated equipment continued to delay diagnosis and treatment. Too much diagnostic equipment is aging or even no longer fit for purpose. Many areas face shortages of radiotherapy capacity, faulty mammography equipment and insufficient staff to operate machines consistently. I have long called for greater investment in the NHS workforce, including during debate in Westminster Hall last year.
While I welcome the government's national cancer Plan, the commitment to provide 28 new radiotherapy machines falls well short of what is actually needed. Instead, the government should be looking to provide at least 200 additional machines that are required to tackle the backlog and ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. That is why my Liberal Democrat, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for a ten year capital investment programme. So every cancer patient can benefit from faster, more accurate diagnostics and treatment. So I ask the minister, what further plans does the government have to invest in both the workforce and the equipment needed to improve breast cancer outcomes?We know breast cancer screening works.
We know early diagnosis saves lives. Now the government must ensure that everyone can benefit by improving uptake and providing the investment that our cancer services urgently need. Thank you, Mr. Vickers.
Early diagnosis is crucial. Detecting breast cancer sooner gives people the best chance of successful treatment and ultimately saving lives. In my own case, I had to visit my GP twice before receiving a diagnosis. Between visits to the GP, the cancer spread to my lymph glands, the result of spreading to my lymph glands still causes issues for me today. 18 years later. But thankfully my treatment was successful. But many others are not so fortunate because of delays in diagnosis.
More than 95% of people diagnosed at stage one survive for at least five years, compared to around 25% diagnosed at stage four. That is why breast screening is so important. The Marmot Review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1300 deaths every year, yet uptake remains too low, particularly in England, where rates lag behind both the devolved nations and pre-pandemic levels. Almost 30% of eligible women are not attending screening appointments. Around 600,000 women are missing the opportunity for early detection.
Research by Cancer Research UK found that concerns about pain are the most common barrier to attending. Others miss invitations, struggle to find the time or remain unconvinced of the benefits. Uptake is even lower in deprived communities, worsening existing inequalities in cancer outcomes in England in 2025, screening uptake was 65% in the most deprived areas, compared with 75% in the least deprived areas. The government needs to work on ideas to improve access to screening, particularly where uptake is the lowest. Simple measures such as follow up invitations, cultural appropriate information and community based pop up screening services could make a real difference by meeting people where they are, and at times that work for them.
Will the minister outline what plans the government might have to increase screening uptake, particularly through community based services?However, improving uptake alone is not enough. Serious workforce shortages and outdated equipment continued to delay diagnosis and treatment. Too much diagnostic equipment is aging or even no longer fit for purpose. Many areas face shortages of radiotherapy capacity, faulty mammography equipment and insufficient staff to operate machines consistently. I have long called for greater investment in the NHS workforce, including during debate in Westminster Hall last year.
While I welcome the government's national cancer Plan, the commitment to provide 28 new radiotherapy machines falls well short of what is actually needed. Instead, the government should be looking to provide at least 200 additional machines that are required to tackle the backlog and ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. That is why my Liberal Democrat, Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for a ten year capital investment programme. So every cancer patient can benefit from faster, more accurate diagnostics and treatment. So I ask the minister, what further plans does the government have to invest in both the workforce and the equipment needed to improve breast cancer outcomes?We know breast cancer screening works.
We know early diagnosis saves lives. Now the government must ensure that everyone can benefit by improving uptake and providing the investment that our cancer services urgently need. Thank you, Mr. Vickers.
18:35
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend for bringing this debate. And to all those who signed the petition, and to all those who have campaigned to raise awareness. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the UK, and whilst there may be a lot of talk today of statistics, everyone knows that the impact of breast cancer isn't a number on a chart or in a table.
It's real life and it's heartbreaking. It's a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a colleague. Almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater chance of successful treatment. Screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. The 2012 Marmot Review we've heard, found that our screening programmes prevent over 1300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I completely understand where the petitions are coming from, because even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many.
That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously. The story of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Lewis, Josh, Alfie, Zack and wife to Richard and Ann Wise, mum of Lewis and Lauren have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and both had at least one remission. Reach remission once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. And Mr. Vickers, I'd like to say and send some love to their families, especially Ann's, because it's her funeral on Saturday, sadly, Laura and Ann are not alone.
More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett, whose breast cancer reached her, too. Before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and why so many people are asking what more can be done. That is why we should follow the science as new evidence emerges, as technology improves, and as we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure it delivers the very best benefits to our patients.
But, Mr. Vickers, alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already had. We already have in 2025, only 70% of ports of women aged 53 to 70 attended the breast screening. In the last 36 months. That's more than 4% behind the average of local authority districts in the South east, and the gap has been widening in recent years. Whatever changes may come in the future, we must also make sure that every woman who is currently eligible takes up the opportunity to be screened for me.
Improving the uptake amongst those already eligible must be an absolute priority. So I'd like to ask the Minister how we are identifying the barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know and we've heard that the levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance, and that is why I welcome the government's new cancer plan, which will include targeted campaigns to improve screening uptake in deprived and underserved communities, helping to ensure that where you live or what you earn does not determine your chance of cancer diagnosis.
So can the minister say more about that, please?Unfortunately, after 14 years of conservative mismanagement, the NHS did never meet its cancer targets. Since 2014 and England's cancer survival rates have slipped more parity behind other countries. And that is not good enough. I think it's so important that as we discuss expanding access to breast screening, we also recognise that the quickest way to undermine that principle would be to move towards an insurance based healthcare system, as advocated by reform UK, as this could alienate even more people and stop even more people taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost.
Labour has set out an ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment. They are expected to save more than 320,000 lives over its lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnosis. Technology means we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes. That, are alongside by shifting more healthcare into our communities, our neighbors, and we can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, be they health hubs on the high street, opening their hours at weekends, early mornings or in the evening and giving a wider access.
And I would welcome to work with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise that number from 70% to 100%. Today's debate isn't about choosing between improving today's screening programme or preparing for tomorrow. We must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners and be prepared to strengthen and adapt the programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman who is entitled to screening be that because of age, family history or symptoms, is encouraged and supported to attend because screening program only works if people use it.
Mr. Vickers. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared from the devastating news. If we can continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports, and ensure more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare more families. The heartbreak of Laura Ann and Fiona and many others. Thank you.
It's real life and it's heartbreaking. It's a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a colleague. Almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater chance of successful treatment. Screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. The 2012 Marmot Review we've heard, found that our screening programmes prevent over 1300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I completely understand where the petitions are coming from, because even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many.
That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously. The story of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Lewis, Josh, Alfie, Zack and wife to Richard and Ann Wise, mum of Lewis and Lauren have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and both had at least one remission. Reach remission once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. And Mr. Vickers, I'd like to say and send some love to their families, especially Ann's, because it's her funeral on Saturday, sadly, Laura and Ann are not alone.
More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett, whose breast cancer reached her, too. Before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and why so many people are asking what more can be done. That is why we should follow the science as new evidence emerges, as technology improves, and as we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure it delivers the very best benefits to our patients.
But, Mr. Vickers, alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already had. We already have in 2025, only 70% of ports of women aged 53 to 70 attended the breast screening. In the last 36 months. That's more than 4% behind the average of local authority districts in the South east, and the gap has been widening in recent years. Whatever changes may come in the future, we must also make sure that every woman who is currently eligible takes up the opportunity to be screened for me.
Improving the uptake amongst those already eligible must be an absolute priority. So I'd like to ask the Minister how we are identifying the barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know and we've heard that the levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance, and that is why I welcome the government's new cancer plan, which will include targeted campaigns to improve screening uptake in deprived and underserved communities, helping to ensure that where you live or what you earn does not determine your chance of cancer diagnosis.
So can the minister say more about that, please?Unfortunately, after 14 years of conservative mismanagement, the NHS did never meet its cancer targets. Since 2014 and England's cancer survival rates have slipped more parity behind other countries. And that is not good enough. I think it's so important that as we discuss expanding access to breast screening, we also recognise that the quickest way to undermine that principle would be to move towards an insurance based healthcare system, as advocated by reform UK, as this could alienate even more people and stop even more people taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost.
Labour has set out an ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment. They are expected to save more than 320,000 lives over its lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnosis. Technology means we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes. That, are alongside by shifting more healthcare into our communities, our neighbors, and we can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, be they health hubs on the high street, opening their hours at weekends, early mornings or in the evening and giving a wider access.
And I would welcome to work with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise that number from 70% to 100%. Today's debate isn't about choosing between improving today's screening programme or preparing for tomorrow. We must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners and be prepared to strengthen and adapt the programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman who is entitled to screening be that because of age, family history or symptoms, is encouraged and supported to attend because screening program only works if people use it.
Mr. Vickers. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared from the devastating news. If we can continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports, and ensure more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare more families. The heartbreak of Laura Ann and Fiona and many others. Thank you.
18:40
18:40
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to thank my friend the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for leading this debate. Now, Gemma Reeves is a breast cancer nurse at my local hospital in Margate. The Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital. She started a petition which I noticed on my Instagram feed a few months ago, calling on the NHS to establish an annual mammograms for 40 year old women, and 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 more and wanted to understand where this policy would end up. And then, of course, my colleagues will recognise this. Like many things, it became another one of those campaigns that 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 at work in the hospital in Margate during the pandemic.
And since it was an increase in the number of women presenting under 50 with breast cancer, what she saw corroborates Copperfield's research that breast cancer in young women is on the rise. She became increasingly concerned that people she was caring for. Were not getting, had not had the screening. That might have meant that when they were. That when they presented at hospital. Finally their cancer was not so advanced. Now more than half of all breast cancer cases in the UK occur in people outside of the national screening age.
1 in 6 are under 50. Now, I know from having had those conversations with Gemma then and then since with my right hon. Friend the member for Washington and Gateshead South, that there are many challenges that come with tackling breast cancer in women who are under 50. We need to work out what is the best way of tackling breast cancer in younger women. I'm delighted that the minister met with myself and Gemma and her friends, who previously were just her patients, and now they have come become not just their friends but also her co campaigners because they have experienced getting breast cancer under 50 and have found that they, too wish that there had been some kind of screening in order for them to be able to have their cancer identified earlier.
We know, and many people who will be contributing to this debate will know that actually screening, as we've currently got it, is designed for older women. Mammograms are designed for women who are over 50. And therefore, if we're looking for a way of screening young women, we may need to think and explore different kinds of technologies, from MRIs to ultrasound. We also need to avoid the situation where you have false positives. As many of my colleagues have referred to, where women could end up fearing that they've got breast cancer.
More, more, more women end up fearing they've got breast cancer than they actually do. Because we introduce screening, which could produce false positives. And we also need to recognise that for many people, having some kind of early test or check in, including things like family history, would enable them and their medical carers to spot the risks that they are exposed to and whether they should go for early screening. Whatever. 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 currently of occurrence of breast cancer under, under, under 50 is out of date. The most recent evidence is 2018. And so therefore, I'm 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, and particularly in East Kent. And I hope, therefore, that the minister will take seriously her request. Not only that we publish the evidence, but when the evidence is published that we act on it, that we find new ways of making sure that women who are younger than the current screening age of 50 are able to access that screening, to be able to make sure that they get their breast cancer spotted early.
One of our big missions in our mandate from the election was that we would tackle, tackle health care by prevention. 30% of breast cancers could be prevented through exercise, diet and alcohol control. But also the earlier women are screened, the more likely it is that we're able to prevent more illness and more deaths. And that's why I have been supporting Gemma in this campaign, and I hope the minister will be able to be sympathetic to exploring further ways of us, making sure that young women can be confident that their breast screening is able to spot any cancer early.
I explored more and wanted to understand where this policy would end up. And then, of course, my colleagues will recognise this. Like many things, it became another one of those campaigns that 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 at work in the hospital in Margate during the pandemic.
And since it was an increase in the number of women presenting under 50 with breast cancer, what she saw corroborates Copperfield's research that breast cancer in young women is on the rise. She became increasingly concerned that people she was caring for. Were not getting, had not had the screening. That might have meant that when they were. That when they presented at hospital. Finally their cancer was not so advanced. Now more than half of all breast cancer cases in the UK occur in people outside of the national screening age.
1 in 6 are under 50. Now, I know from having had those conversations with Gemma then and then since with my right hon. Friend the member for Washington and Gateshead South, that there are many challenges that come with tackling breast cancer in women who are under 50. We need to work out what is the best way of tackling breast cancer in younger women. I'm delighted that the minister met with myself and Gemma and her friends, who previously were just her patients, and now they have come become not just their friends but also her co campaigners because they have experienced getting breast cancer under 50 and have found that they, too wish that there had been some kind of screening in order for them to be able to have their cancer identified earlier.
We know, and many people who will be contributing to this debate will know that actually screening, as we've currently got it, is designed for older women. Mammograms are designed for women who are over 50. And therefore, if we're looking for a way of screening young women, we may need to think and explore different kinds of technologies, from MRIs to ultrasound. We also need to avoid the situation where you have false positives. As many of my colleagues have referred to, where women could end up fearing that they've got breast cancer.
More, more, more women end up fearing they've got breast cancer than they actually do. Because we introduce screening, which could produce false positives. And we also need to recognise that for many people, having some kind of early test or check in, including things like family history, would enable them and their medical carers to spot the risks that they are exposed to and whether they should go for early screening. Whatever. 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 currently of occurrence of breast cancer under, under, under 50 is out of date. The most recent evidence is 2018. And so therefore, I'm 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, and particularly in East Kent. And I hope, therefore, that the minister will take seriously her request. Not only that we publish the evidence, but when the evidence is published that we act on it, that we find new ways of making sure that women who are younger than the current screening age of 50 are able to access that screening, to be able to make sure that they get their breast cancer spotted early.
One of our big missions in our mandate from the election was that we would tackle, tackle health care by prevention. 30% of breast cancers could be prevented through exercise, diet and alcohol control. But also the earlier women are screened, the more likely it is that we're able to prevent more illness and more deaths. And that's why I have been supporting Gemma in this campaign, and I hope the minister will be able to be sympathetic to exploring further ways of us, making sure that young women can be confident that their breast screening is able to spot any cancer early.
18:45
18:45
18:45
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Vickers and I would like to begin by commending my honourable friend for North Ayrshire and Arran for leading this important debate and setting out the arguments so clearly, I welcome the petition upon which today's debate is predicated, and I recognise the calls from from the petitioners, including the 141 people from Mid-cheshire who signed the petition. I believe that any measures which can increase breast cancer diagnosis rates improve treatment options, enhance survival and ultimately save lives must be carefully considered. A diagnosis of breast cancer is devastating at any stage, but when it comes too late, when opportunities for early detection have been missed, the consequences are profound and irreversible.
Behind every statistic is a person, a family, a future altered forever. Today, I want to focus on the story of my constituent Sarah. Sarah was identified as being at a higher risk of developing breast cancer due to her family history. In March 2020, she took the responsible step of seeing her GP and was referred for genetic testing. But as the Covid 19 pandemic took hold, all Non-symptomatic breast screening, including family history assessments, was paused locally. Sarah did everything right.
She repeatedly followed up, sought answers and was reassured she remained on a waiting list. But that appointment never came. Just over a year later, in May 2021, Sarah found a lump in her breast. Following investigations, she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, an aggressive form of the disease. She underwent a mastectomy and chemotherapy, but even then, her journey was marked by delays in test results and the start of treatment. Less than a year later in April 2022, Sarah discovered another lump.
This time, the cancer had spread. What had once been treatable was now incurable. Treatment could only manage, not cure again. Delays followed delays that no patient in such a fragile situation should ever endure. But despite this, Sarah wrote I would like to make it clear that I very much appreciate the care and support I have received. Despite the obvious, overwhelming and continuing pressures on the NHS. Almost every single NHS employee has been extremely kind and professional and have made many difficult experiences, at least a little easier.
They appear to share many of the frustrations. Tragically, Sarah passed away in May 2024, aged just 46. Even in the face of her own mortality, Sarah fought for change. She spoke out about her experience and called for improvements to ensure timely testing and treatment. Crucially, she argued that Non-symptomatic screening must never again be paused, even in times of crisis because early diagnosis saves lives. Sarah was absolutely right to highlight the significant impact that pausing Non-symptomatic screening had on early diagnosis, treatment options and patient outcomes.
Any disruption to early detection has lasting and devastating consequences. Her call to ensure that that future pandemic preparedness protects vital screening services must be heeded. After Sarah's death, her husband Dave, carried forward her campaign with extraordinary courage and determination. His advocacy, born of grief, was both powerful and inspiring, but tragically, Dave took his own life a few short months ago. We cannot let their story end here. Their experience lays bare the cost of delay, the cost of inaction, and the cost of systems that fail to prioritise early diagnosis.
We must act by strengthening screening programs, ensuring resilience in times of crisis and delivering timely care for every patient. Let this be the legacy of Sarah and Dave, not one of loss alone, but of change. We owe it to them and to every family to ensure that no one else endures what they did. Thank you.
Behind every statistic is a person, a family, a future altered forever. Today, I want to focus on the story of my constituent Sarah. Sarah was identified as being at a higher risk of developing breast cancer due to her family history. In March 2020, she took the responsible step of seeing her GP and was referred for genetic testing. But as the Covid 19 pandemic took hold, all Non-symptomatic breast screening, including family history assessments, was paused locally. Sarah did everything right.
She repeatedly followed up, sought answers and was reassured she remained on a waiting list. But that appointment never came. Just over a year later, in May 2021, Sarah found a lump in her breast. Following investigations, she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, an aggressive form of the disease. She underwent a mastectomy and chemotherapy, but even then, her journey was marked by delays in test results and the start of treatment. Less than a year later in April 2022, Sarah discovered another lump.
This time, the cancer had spread. What had once been treatable was now incurable. Treatment could only manage, not cure again. Delays followed delays that no patient in such a fragile situation should ever endure. But despite this, Sarah wrote I would like to make it clear that I very much appreciate the care and support I have received. Despite the obvious, overwhelming and continuing pressures on the NHS. Almost every single NHS employee has been extremely kind and professional and have made many difficult experiences, at least a little easier.
They appear to share many of the frustrations. Tragically, Sarah passed away in May 2024, aged just 46. Even in the face of her own mortality, Sarah fought for change. She spoke out about her experience and called for improvements to ensure timely testing and treatment. Crucially, she argued that Non-symptomatic screening must never again be paused, even in times of crisis because early diagnosis saves lives. Sarah was absolutely right to highlight the significant impact that pausing Non-symptomatic screening had on early diagnosis, treatment options and patient outcomes.
Any disruption to early detection has lasting and devastating consequences. Her call to ensure that that future pandemic preparedness protects vital screening services must be heeded. After Sarah's death, her husband Dave, carried forward her campaign with extraordinary courage and determination. His advocacy, born of grief, was both powerful and inspiring, but tragically, Dave took his own life a few short months ago. We cannot let their story end here. Their experience lays bare the cost of delay, the cost of inaction, and the cost of systems that fail to prioritise early diagnosis.
We must act by strengthening screening programs, ensuring resilience in times of crisis and delivering timely care for every patient. Let this be the legacy of Sarah and Dave, not one of loss alone, but of change. We owe it to them and to every family to ensure that no one else endures what they did. Thank you.
18:49
18:49
18:49
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you. And it's an absolute pleasure to serve under your chair, Mr. Vickers. And I thank my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for leading this important petitions debate on NHS and breast screening, and it's hard to follow the honourable member after his passionate speech just now. This is important because in the UK there are around 60,000 new cases of breast cancer each year. This represents 15% of all new cancer cases and 30% of all new female cancer cases.
Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women. A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every nine minutes. There are approximately 11,200 deaths due to breast cancer each year in the UK. The human cost behind these statistics cannot be overstated. In the short span of today's debate, ten women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, whilst two will tragically lose their lives to the disease. Over the recent decades, we've made huge strides in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.
It is remarkable that now approximately 76% of women survive for ten years or more following their diagnosis. But like any cancer, diagnosing breast cancer early remains vital and saves lives. Breast cancer remains the most effective way to detect breast screening remains the most effective way to detect cancer at an early stage, which is also when treatment is most likely to succeed. Over 95% of people diagnosed at stage one will survive for at least five years, compared with around just 25% diagnosed at stage four.
The Marmot Review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1300 deaths a year in 2024 to 2025, 2.75 million women aged 50 to 71 were invited to be screened, a 10% increase on the previous year, 2.15 million women took this screening offer, up. Nearly 20,000 women had breast cancer detected through this screening. But as this figure also highlights, there are there are around hundred 000 women not taking up the essential offer of breast cancer screening. Recent screening data reveals an alarming trend of women not attending their first screening appointments.
The impact of not taking up these screening offers only compounds this issue. Women who don't attend their first breast cancer screening appointment are much less likely to take up subsequent screening invitations in 2024 to 2025, only 20.9% of women in England who had never previously taken up screening invitations attended, compared to 89.1% uptake amongst women who'd previously been screened in the last five years. Screening uptake for the first time, invitations has never reached 70% since the creation of the NHS breast screening programme. Had screening uptake levels reached the NHS Achievable standard target of 80% in 2024 to 2025.
Over a quarter of a million more women would have undergone routine screening. This would have resulted in an estimated additional 2228 breast cancers being found. The scale of this missed opportunity to catch more cancer early is unacceptable, and women and their loved ones are ultimately paying the tragic price. I take the opportunity now to urge anyone who is eligible to take up the offer of breast cancer screening. The Liberal Democrats are clear. So much more must be done to ensure that every eligible woman attends screening when invited, particularly in England, which is lagging behind the devolved nations as well as pre-pandemic levels.
There are many reasons why women don't attend their breast cancer screening appointments, for example. Misconceptions about the screening process and breast cancer, the fear of receiving a diagnosis or cultural beliefs and attitudes others may not be able to attend due to everyday challenges such as limited transport, clashing work schedules or the burden of caring responsibilities. Health inequalities also affect screening uptake. Women from ethnic minority communities, those living in disadvantaged areas, and women with disabilities often face additional barriers that reduce their access to breast screening services.
So I ask the minister, what actions are the Labour government taking to improve screening uptake nationally, particularly among disenfranchised women?What steps is this government actively taking to support pop up screening initiatives in community settings, and what is being done to ensure that these vital health services are meeting people where they are, and at times that work for them?I also ask the minister what steps she is taking to ensure that women are able to receive the best screening tests for their individual health needs, for example, providing women with an increased risk of breast cancer.
The opportunity to have an ultrasound if that is able to go an MRI for any reason, and if they have dense breasts, as well as younger women at increased risk, for whom an ultrasound will provide greater accuracy in screening their dense breast tissue. As mammograms can struggle to identify cancer in dense breasts. As both cancers and dense tissue present exactly the same on imaging. So the Liberal Democrats are also very concerned that so much NHS equipment, including diagnostic and scanning equipment, is out of date and decrepit.
A quarter of England's 280 radiotherapy machines are now operating beyond their ten year lifespan, with a further 26 due to exceed the recommended lifespan by 2027. England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries. Radiotherapy UK's research reveals that England has just 4.8 linear accelerator machines per million population, well behind France that has 8.5 and Italy at 6.9. Radiotherapy also lacks clear accountability, while responsibility for commissioning radiotherapy sits with Icbs. Freedom of Information requests found that around 70% of Icbs do not have a named person responsible for radiotherapy.
Access to radiotherapy is well below international expectations. Around 52 to 53% of cancer patients are estimated to need radiotherapy, but only around 35% of cancer patients in England actually receive it. In some areas, this is as low as 22%. Radiotherapy also has the longest waiting times. Only around 4 in 10 patients receive radiotherapy on time, and in some areas of the country this is as low as 2 in 10 receiving radiotherapy on time. Whether it's radiotherapy, deserts or a mammogram machine glitch that left 7000 women in parts of Essex without a screening service for almost two months, breast cancer patients are routinely being let down by faulty and inaccessible equipment.
This is unacceptable and we must take action now in order to address this. The Liberal Democrats are campaigning for a ten year capital investment programme. This would ensure that every patient, including women with breast cancer, benefit from easier access to newer, quicker and more accurate machines. Alongside screening, speed and quality of treatment, are central to increasing survival rates of breast cancer. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral.
We'd also replace the ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their numbers to guarantee that no one must travel ridiculous distances to receive the treatment that they desperately need. Currently in England, 3.4 million people live further away than the NHS target of 45 minutes for radiotherapy centre. Taking these steps now is vital. We need to prepare our local cancer services for the future as demand is increasing because cancer cases are expected to rise by about 30% by 2040. The new national screening programme is also likely to identify more patients who need curative radiotherapy treatment, and the existing pressures on radiotherapy services will only worsen without urgent action.
Additionally, we'd recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We would also halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products regulatory agencies capacity. The future also looks bright, with early pilots and trials using AI to analyze mammograms showing promising signs of potential improvement in both speed and accuracy of screening. But we must support our life sciences sector much more than we currently are to champion vital research and innovation.
The Liberal Democrats would pass a Cancer Survival Research Act, requiring the government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates. To end my contribution to this debate, I want to reflect on the ten women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and the two who will have tragically lost their lives to the disease in the short span of today's debate. For them and the thousands of women of people, mostly women, but also men living with breast cancer and their loved ones, I urge the minister to carefully consider the important points and perspective raised in the debate today.
Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women. A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every nine minutes. There are approximately 11,200 deaths due to breast cancer each year in the UK. The human cost behind these statistics cannot be overstated. In the short span of today's debate, ten women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, whilst two will tragically lose their lives to the disease. Over the recent decades, we've made huge strides in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.
It is remarkable that now approximately 76% of women survive for ten years or more following their diagnosis. But like any cancer, diagnosing breast cancer early remains vital and saves lives. Breast cancer remains the most effective way to detect breast screening remains the most effective way to detect cancer at an early stage, which is also when treatment is most likely to succeed. Over 95% of people diagnosed at stage one will survive for at least five years, compared with around just 25% diagnosed at stage four.
The Marmot Review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1300 deaths a year in 2024 to 2025, 2.75 million women aged 50 to 71 were invited to be screened, a 10% increase on the previous year, 2.15 million women took this screening offer, up. Nearly 20,000 women had breast cancer detected through this screening. But as this figure also highlights, there are there are around hundred 000 women not taking up the essential offer of breast cancer screening. Recent screening data reveals an alarming trend of women not attending their first screening appointments.
The impact of not taking up these screening offers only compounds this issue. Women who don't attend their first breast cancer screening appointment are much less likely to take up subsequent screening invitations in 2024 to 2025, only 20.9% of women in England who had never previously taken up screening invitations attended, compared to 89.1% uptake amongst women who'd previously been screened in the last five years. Screening uptake for the first time, invitations has never reached 70% since the creation of the NHS breast screening programme. Had screening uptake levels reached the NHS Achievable standard target of 80% in 2024 to 2025.
Over a quarter of a million more women would have undergone routine screening. This would have resulted in an estimated additional 2228 breast cancers being found. The scale of this missed opportunity to catch more cancer early is unacceptable, and women and their loved ones are ultimately paying the tragic price. I take the opportunity now to urge anyone who is eligible to take up the offer of breast cancer screening. The Liberal Democrats are clear. So much more must be done to ensure that every eligible woman attends screening when invited, particularly in England, which is lagging behind the devolved nations as well as pre-pandemic levels.
There are many reasons why women don't attend their breast cancer screening appointments, for example. Misconceptions about the screening process and breast cancer, the fear of receiving a diagnosis or cultural beliefs and attitudes others may not be able to attend due to everyday challenges such as limited transport, clashing work schedules or the burden of caring responsibilities. Health inequalities also affect screening uptake. Women from ethnic minority communities, those living in disadvantaged areas, and women with disabilities often face additional barriers that reduce their access to breast screening services.
So I ask the minister, what actions are the Labour government taking to improve screening uptake nationally, particularly among disenfranchised women?What steps is this government actively taking to support pop up screening initiatives in community settings, and what is being done to ensure that these vital health services are meeting people where they are, and at times that work for them?I also ask the minister what steps she is taking to ensure that women are able to receive the best screening tests for their individual health needs, for example, providing women with an increased risk of breast cancer.
The opportunity to have an ultrasound if that is able to go an MRI for any reason, and if they have dense breasts, as well as younger women at increased risk, for whom an ultrasound will provide greater accuracy in screening their dense breast tissue. As mammograms can struggle to identify cancer in dense breasts. As both cancers and dense tissue present exactly the same on imaging. So the Liberal Democrats are also very concerned that so much NHS equipment, including diagnostic and scanning equipment, is out of date and decrepit.
A quarter of England's 280 radiotherapy machines are now operating beyond their ten year lifespan, with a further 26 due to exceed the recommended lifespan by 2027. England has fewer radiotherapy machines than comparable European countries. Radiotherapy UK's research reveals that England has just 4.8 linear accelerator machines per million population, well behind France that has 8.5 and Italy at 6.9. Radiotherapy also lacks clear accountability, while responsibility for commissioning radiotherapy sits with Icbs. Freedom of Information requests found that around 70% of Icbs do not have a named person responsible for radiotherapy.
Access to radiotherapy is well below international expectations. Around 52 to 53% of cancer patients are estimated to need radiotherapy, but only around 35% of cancer patients in England actually receive it. In some areas, this is as low as 22%. Radiotherapy also has the longest waiting times. Only around 4 in 10 patients receive radiotherapy on time, and in some areas of the country this is as low as 2 in 10 receiving radiotherapy on time. Whether it's radiotherapy, deserts or a mammogram machine glitch that left 7000 women in parts of Essex without a screening service for almost two months, breast cancer patients are routinely being let down by faulty and inaccessible equipment.
This is unacceptable and we must take action now in order to address this. The Liberal Democrats are campaigning for a ten year capital investment programme. This would ensure that every patient, including women with breast cancer, benefit from easier access to newer, quicker and more accurate machines. Alongside screening, speed and quality of treatment, are central to increasing survival rates of breast cancer. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 62 days from urgent referral.
We'd also replace the ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their numbers to guarantee that no one must travel ridiculous distances to receive the treatment that they desperately need. Currently in England, 3.4 million people live further away than the NHS target of 45 minutes for radiotherapy centre. Taking these steps now is vital. We need to prepare our local cancer services for the future as demand is increasing because cancer cases are expected to rise by about 30% by 2040. The new national screening programme is also likely to identify more patients who need curative radiotherapy treatment, and the existing pressures on radiotherapy services will only worsen without urgent action.
Additionally, we'd recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment. We would also halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products regulatory agencies capacity. The future also looks bright, with early pilots and trials using AI to analyze mammograms showing promising signs of potential improvement in both speed and accuracy of screening. But we must support our life sciences sector much more than we currently are to champion vital research and innovation.
The Liberal Democrats would pass a Cancer Survival Research Act, requiring the government to co-ordinate and ensure funding for research into the cancers with the lowest survival rates. To end my contribution to this debate, I want to reflect on the ten women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and the two who will have tragically lost their lives to the disease in the short span of today's debate. For them and the thousands of women of people, mostly women, but also men living with breast cancer and their loved ones, I urge the minister to carefully consider the important points and perspective raised in the debate today.
18:58
18:58
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, and I would like to congratulate also Gemma Taylor for bringing forward this petition and the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing this important debate. It's been very moving this afternoon to hear so many stories from honourable members across the House that have reminded us of the human cost of this disease. Cancer is very common, as other members have said, affecting 1 in 7 women during their lifetime. And the minister and I have a number of debates in this in this in this chamber about various different diseases and different forms of cancer.
And one of the core principles we often discuss is the principle that early diagnosis saves lives, and Cancer Research UK say that 85% of women who live more than ten years after a diagnosis of breast cancer were diagnosed as stage one or stage two. So the earlier stages to be diagnosed at. It is for this reason and for this principle that the UK introduced the world's first national screening programme for breast cancer in 1988, and since then very much has changed. In particular, the survival rates have improved dramatically.
Now 76.6% at living more than ten years, it was very much lower in the 1980s. But there are still some issues with screening. As honourable members have said. One issue is that women with dense breasts find it more difficult to locate lumps, and also it can be more difficult when doing mammograms to locate cancerous tumours. And so it may be that the minister can update the House on what work has been done. Looking at ultrasounds and MRIs as different methods of screening that could be used to identify tumors in women with denser breast.
Um, the. NSC, the National Screening Council, I understand, are looking at this subject in detail. Could the minister tell us when they're due to report their findings to her and when she intends to bring them to this House?Things affecting the treatment include the effectiveness of treatment, which, as we've said, has improved. Um, the risk of overtreatment, which we know is higher in younger women, but also the frequency of effect of the disease, the incidence of the disease, which is increasing and it's increasing in younger women and in older women.
And the figures I got from the Cancer Research UK website were that within women 25 to 49, the rate has increased by 12%. And in women aged 65 to 69, it's increased by 72%. Which begs the question should younger women be now receiving screening?And it also begs the question should women who are older women be receiving more frequent screening?The cancer plan that the government published earlier this year, chair, said that they would engage with manufacturers to look at mammograms that are more accessible to those with physical disability who may struggle to receive their screening.
At the moment, I wonder if the minister could update the House on what engagement she's had so far with such manufacturers, and what progress is being made. Uh, likewise, the age trial in Oxford is looking at women between 47 and 49 and 71 to 73 years. So these are the ages just outside the current range of screening, I understand early results are due in December 2026. Has the minister had any indication yet, and is she preparing for any results that may come forward as she engaged with the people running this important trial, the community diagnostic centres initiated by the previous government and rolled out across the country, are really providing a screening localised to people's homes, which makes it much easier for people to attend.
Um, can the minister update us on how she's working on improving the number of CDCs available across the country?The government has talked of these different shifts that it wants to produce in the health care, and one of them is about prevention. And according to the Cancer Research UK website Prevention, uh, 23% of breast cancer cases are preventable. And I wonder if the minister could update us on what she's doing to try and reduce the number of preventable cases of breast cancer. Many honourable members have talked about the attendance at screening tests.
Um, and the Lib Dem spokeswoman spoke about some of the reasons that women may not attend for screening. Um, I think it's really important that we understand why women are not attending for screening. It's around a third of women that don't attend. And it's only by understanding what puts women off, what makes them not attend, that we can help to improve the service so that more women do attend. And, uh, it was very sobering to hear just how many more lives could be saved if more women attended the screening.
Um, and so how are we making it more accessible for women to get there?How are we making sure that women know that it's happening and that they need it and understand the benefits for it?Again, the minister be interested to hear her thoughts on this topic. Um, another shift, chair, is the shift in relation to the digital NHS and um. AI provides us with a number of different ways in which breast cancer screening and treatment could be improved. It could help us with understanding who should be invited to screening and how often they should be invited for their screening.
But it can also help to look at the mammogram scans. And with the Health Select Committee a few years ago, chair, we did a visit to Stanford, Stanford in California, and we looked at the AI there where they were comparing the radiology consultant, looking at a scan to radiology consultants versus two AI computers at different programmes versus a person and an AI computer. And what they discovered is that the person in the AI computer found the best level of accuracy, but that helps to reduce the number of people we need in terms of workforce, and can help improve the accuracy of screening results, which is important.
Um, and that brings me on to the workforce chair. We know that the government has a workforce plan. We know it's not been published yet and it's much delayed. We've been told repeatedly over the last week, a few weeks that it's gone to imminent status imminent being quicker than soon, but we don't know when imminent is. And I've encouraged the minister to say, does that mean it's going to be published before the summer, or is it waiting for the new Prime Minister to make a decision?But it would be helpful to know, because we, you know, as has been talked about with radiology and radiotherapy workforce is incredibly important.
And we do need to have a thorough plan. Otherwise we'll find ourselves with, uh, recommendations from the NSC for screening and no people to provide that care. I also wanted to raise with ministers the Lobular moonshot programme, which we've talked about in previous debates, the importance of lobular breast cancer, which is more difficult to diagnose and treat, and the research into it. And I know the minister last time we spoke about this was looking at research projects that the government would be able to fund, which would hopefully save lives and identify new treatments and new ways of screening for this disease.
I wonder if you could update us on how she's how she's getting along with that. In addition to that chair, much of my time at the moment is spent with one of the other ministers in a committee room nine, discussing the health bill. And that's where I'll be tomorrow. Uh, and that's, uh, one of the important organizational factors in screening. So at the moment, the screening programmes are generally organised by NHS England. And NHS England is being abolished.
And NHS England and NHS wrote a letter in March saying that commissioning responsibility would be directly delegated to the Icbs in the same way as they are currently delegated to NHS by the Secretary of State. So does the Minister expect this to cause any disruption to the breast screening programme?We know that the integrated care boards have had their budgets cut by 50%, just as they asked to take on this work. We know they're merging and reorganising themselves. We know that the minister's plans are that they should follow the mayoral authority boundaries, but that the mergers that have taken place so far do not follow those those mayoral boundaries.
And therefore, there is a risk that in order to do that, we'll need further reorganisation all over again. And so does the Minister think that's going to have an effect on the screening programme?And if she does, what is she doing to mitigate that effect, to make sure that as many people as possible get the very best screening as possible, so we can reduce the number of people who suffer from this disease. Um, so in summary, chair, I think the screening programme offers offers a real opportunity to diagnose early and treat early and save lives, but it needs to be delivered well, and we need to ensure that we make sure that the right, right people get the right type of screening at the right age and the right frequency.
And I'm interested in minister's response.
And one of the core principles we often discuss is the principle that early diagnosis saves lives, and Cancer Research UK say that 85% of women who live more than ten years after a diagnosis of breast cancer were diagnosed as stage one or stage two. So the earlier stages to be diagnosed at. It is for this reason and for this principle that the UK introduced the world's first national screening programme for breast cancer in 1988, and since then very much has changed. In particular, the survival rates have improved dramatically.
Now 76.6% at living more than ten years, it was very much lower in the 1980s. But there are still some issues with screening. As honourable members have said. One issue is that women with dense breasts find it more difficult to locate lumps, and also it can be more difficult when doing mammograms to locate cancerous tumours. And so it may be that the minister can update the House on what work has been done. Looking at ultrasounds and MRIs as different methods of screening that could be used to identify tumors in women with denser breast.
Um, the. NSC, the National Screening Council, I understand, are looking at this subject in detail. Could the minister tell us when they're due to report their findings to her and when she intends to bring them to this House?Things affecting the treatment include the effectiveness of treatment, which, as we've said, has improved. Um, the risk of overtreatment, which we know is higher in younger women, but also the frequency of effect of the disease, the incidence of the disease, which is increasing and it's increasing in younger women and in older women.
And the figures I got from the Cancer Research UK website were that within women 25 to 49, the rate has increased by 12%. And in women aged 65 to 69, it's increased by 72%. Which begs the question should younger women be now receiving screening?And it also begs the question should women who are older women be receiving more frequent screening?The cancer plan that the government published earlier this year, chair, said that they would engage with manufacturers to look at mammograms that are more accessible to those with physical disability who may struggle to receive their screening.
At the moment, I wonder if the minister could update the House on what engagement she's had so far with such manufacturers, and what progress is being made. Uh, likewise, the age trial in Oxford is looking at women between 47 and 49 and 71 to 73 years. So these are the ages just outside the current range of screening, I understand early results are due in December 2026. Has the minister had any indication yet, and is she preparing for any results that may come forward as she engaged with the people running this important trial, the community diagnostic centres initiated by the previous government and rolled out across the country, are really providing a screening localised to people's homes, which makes it much easier for people to attend.
Um, can the minister update us on how she's working on improving the number of CDCs available across the country?The government has talked of these different shifts that it wants to produce in the health care, and one of them is about prevention. And according to the Cancer Research UK website Prevention, uh, 23% of breast cancer cases are preventable. And I wonder if the minister could update us on what she's doing to try and reduce the number of preventable cases of breast cancer. Many honourable members have talked about the attendance at screening tests.
Um, and the Lib Dem spokeswoman spoke about some of the reasons that women may not attend for screening. Um, I think it's really important that we understand why women are not attending for screening. It's around a third of women that don't attend. And it's only by understanding what puts women off, what makes them not attend, that we can help to improve the service so that more women do attend. And, uh, it was very sobering to hear just how many more lives could be saved if more women attended the screening.
Um, and so how are we making it more accessible for women to get there?How are we making sure that women know that it's happening and that they need it and understand the benefits for it?Again, the minister be interested to hear her thoughts on this topic. Um, another shift, chair, is the shift in relation to the digital NHS and um. AI provides us with a number of different ways in which breast cancer screening and treatment could be improved. It could help us with understanding who should be invited to screening and how often they should be invited for their screening.
But it can also help to look at the mammogram scans. And with the Health Select Committee a few years ago, chair, we did a visit to Stanford, Stanford in California, and we looked at the AI there where they were comparing the radiology consultant, looking at a scan to radiology consultants versus two AI computers at different programmes versus a person and an AI computer. And what they discovered is that the person in the AI computer found the best level of accuracy, but that helps to reduce the number of people we need in terms of workforce, and can help improve the accuracy of screening results, which is important.
Um, and that brings me on to the workforce chair. We know that the government has a workforce plan. We know it's not been published yet and it's much delayed. We've been told repeatedly over the last week, a few weeks that it's gone to imminent status imminent being quicker than soon, but we don't know when imminent is. And I've encouraged the minister to say, does that mean it's going to be published before the summer, or is it waiting for the new Prime Minister to make a decision?But it would be helpful to know, because we, you know, as has been talked about with radiology and radiotherapy workforce is incredibly important.
And we do need to have a thorough plan. Otherwise we'll find ourselves with, uh, recommendations from the NSC for screening and no people to provide that care. I also wanted to raise with ministers the Lobular moonshot programme, which we've talked about in previous debates, the importance of lobular breast cancer, which is more difficult to diagnose and treat, and the research into it. And I know the minister last time we spoke about this was looking at research projects that the government would be able to fund, which would hopefully save lives and identify new treatments and new ways of screening for this disease.
I wonder if you could update us on how she's how she's getting along with that. In addition to that chair, much of my time at the moment is spent with one of the other ministers in a committee room nine, discussing the health bill. And that's where I'll be tomorrow. Uh, and that's, uh, one of the important organizational factors in screening. So at the moment, the screening programmes are generally organised by NHS England. And NHS England is being abolished.
And NHS England and NHS wrote a letter in March saying that commissioning responsibility would be directly delegated to the Icbs in the same way as they are currently delegated to NHS by the Secretary of State. So does the Minister expect this to cause any disruption to the breast screening programme?We know that the integrated care boards have had their budgets cut by 50%, just as they asked to take on this work. We know they're merging and reorganising themselves. We know that the minister's plans are that they should follow the mayoral authority boundaries, but that the mergers that have taken place so far do not follow those those mayoral boundaries.
And therefore, there is a risk that in order to do that, we'll need further reorganisation all over again. And so does the Minister think that's going to have an effect on the screening programme?And if she does, what is she doing to mitigate that effect, to make sure that as many people as possible get the very best screening as possible, so we can reduce the number of people who suffer from this disease. Um, so in summary, chair, I think the screening programme offers offers a real opportunity to diagnose early and treat early and save lives, but it needs to be delivered well, and we need to ensure that we make sure that the right, right people get the right type of screening at the right age and the right frequency.
And I'm interested in minister's response.
19:07
19:07
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you very much, Mr. Vickers. Okay. How long have I got?I've got a lot to a lot to get through. Um, let's see if I can make it. I would like to start by thanking my honourable friend, the member for North Ayrshire and Arran for opening this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee. And also I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the member for East Thanet. Um and her constituent Gemma, and her son Mason and the other ladies who joined us in the gallery today for their campaigning, um, to bring this petition and to gather so many, um, petitioners that we are able to have this debate today because it's very important.
So I thank them and pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. Um, I was very, very pleased to be able to meet them last month, um, to discuss this very important issue. Um, I'd also like to take this opportunity, if I may, to pay tribute to my predecessor and my hon. Friend the member for West Lanarkshire. Um, I commend her courage and speaking so openly about her experience as well of breast cancer. And I sent my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment.
And I know that um, behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, families and communities who've been affected by breast cancer. Um, in the most difficult and personal ways. Um, women and men, I have to add. Um, I also want to 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 preventative measure. Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women, and each of the.
And each year the programme is estimated to save around 1300 lives. But we must also 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 for the people who love them. And that is why I want to be clear. We need to do more and we 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 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 this year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units and cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier. Now, I want to refer to, um, uh. Issues that were raised by the honourable member for Edinburgh South West, Wokingham, Broxtowe, Portsmouth North and the Honourable lady who speaks for the Lib Dems.
There might have been others, but it's what I've scribbled down about issues around um on serving ethnic minority communities as well as under under served and deprived communities. Um, building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, which I mentioned, um, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. And they will focus on increasing awareness of symptoms, support primary care to spot signs of cancer early, and that work will also include raising awareness of cancer symptoms, supporting primary care to spot signs of cancer early, reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and the least deprived areas.
There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups, because no one should be left behind, and the NHS also runs the Help Us Help You campaign in England. This campaign is helping to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms, address barriers to acting on them and encourage people to come forward as soon as possible to see their GP, and I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age, and it is a deeply human question, often asked by people who have seen first hand the impact of breast cancer.
And so we are looking carefully at the evidence. And the picture, however, is complex. And I'm going to come on to everything. Everyone has raised. Younger women tend to have dense breast tissue, as we've heard, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives and necessary tests. Avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence.
Um honourable friends from Doncaster East in the Isle of Axholme, Broxtowe, Edinburgh South West, um and no. Doubt other colleagues again raised this issue and um as we know, some women will have dense breast tissue and unfortunately mum mammography is less effective. As I've said on breast on dense breast tissue as potential cancer can be harder to spot. So we are working to find the best solutions to this issue. And a study called braid the breast screening risk Adaptive Imagery Imaging for density is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with breast dense with dense breast tissue.
The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and is reviewing the evidence as it becomes available, and ministers in the department will consider and across government will consider their recommendations as soon as they are made. The HSHX um breast screening trial is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken in. A number of colleagues asked about this also. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age and um. Research.
This 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. And Ajax is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken, and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in the. These age groups, including the benefit and harms the UK. NSC will review the publication of the age X extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009 and results are expected in 2027.
I know the honourable member for Keighley and Ilk, Lee um, asked me um about. About that I think um 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. And the UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. And should robust evidence regarding the extension of the breast screening age thresholds become available. The committee will look at this right away, and in the meantime, though, NHS England has produced a suite of public facing information resources, communicating that women, especially aged over 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish.
I was asked about the member for Keighley and asked me about why we don't screen annually. That was exactly in particular what he asked me about the three year intervals of the National Breast Screening Programme is based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances, the risk of harm from overdiagnosis with the benefits of early detection and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently. So. Um, also, I, I will help you.
So I thank them and pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. Um, I was very, very pleased to be able to meet them last month, um, to discuss this very important issue. Um, I'd also like to take this opportunity, if I may, to pay tribute to my predecessor and my hon. Friend the member for West Lanarkshire. Um, I commend her courage and speaking so openly about her experience as well of breast cancer. And I sent my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment.
And I know that um, behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, families and communities who've been affected by breast cancer. Um, in the most difficult and personal ways. Um, women and men, I have to add. Um, I also want to 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 preventative measure. Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women, and each of the.
And each year the programme is estimated to save around 1300 lives. But we must also 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 for the people who love them. And that is why I want to be clear. We need to do more and we 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 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 this year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units and cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier. Now, I want to refer to, um, uh. Issues that were raised by the honourable member for Edinburgh South West, Wokingham, Broxtowe, Portsmouth North and the Honourable lady who speaks for the Lib Dems.
There might have been others, but it's what I've scribbled down about issues around um on serving ethnic minority communities as well as under under served and deprived communities. Um, building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, which I mentioned, um, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. And they will focus on increasing awareness of symptoms, support primary care to spot signs of cancer early, and that work will also include raising awareness of cancer symptoms, supporting primary care to spot signs of cancer early, reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and the least deprived areas.
There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups, because no one should be left behind, and the NHS also runs the Help Us Help You campaign in England. This campaign is helping to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms, address barriers to acting on them and encourage people to come forward as soon as possible to see their GP, and I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age, and it is a deeply human question, often asked by people who have seen first hand the impact of breast cancer.
And so we are looking carefully at the evidence. And the picture, however, is complex. And I'm going to come on to everything. Everyone has raised. Younger women tend to have dense breast tissue, as we've heard, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives and necessary tests. Avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence.
Um honourable friends from Doncaster East in the Isle of Axholme, Broxtowe, Edinburgh South West, um and no. Doubt other colleagues again raised this issue and um as we know, some women will have dense breast tissue and unfortunately mum mammography is less effective. As I've said on breast on dense breast tissue as potential cancer can be harder to spot. So we are working to find the best solutions to this issue. And a study called braid the breast screening risk Adaptive Imagery Imaging for density is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with breast dense with dense breast tissue.
The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and is reviewing the evidence as it becomes available, and ministers in the department will consider and across government will consider their recommendations as soon as they are made. The HSHX um breast screening trial is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken in. A number of colleagues asked about this also. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age and um. Research.
This 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. And Ajax is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken, and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in the. These age groups, including the benefit and harms the UK. NSC will review the publication of the age X extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009 and results are expected in 2027.
I know the honourable member for Keighley and Ilk, Lee um, asked me um about. About that I think um 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. And the UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. And should robust evidence regarding the extension of the breast screening age thresholds become available. The committee will look at this right away, and in the meantime, though, NHS England has produced a suite of public facing information resources, communicating that women, especially aged over 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish.
I was asked about the member for Keighley and asked me about why we don't screen annually. That was exactly in particular what he asked me about the three year intervals of the National Breast Screening Programme is based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances, the risk of harm from overdiagnosis with the benefits of early detection and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently. So. Um, also, I, I will help you.
19:17
19:17
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
To lower the age for when you're able to be first called to 40 and then the roll out, as I asked my question to an annual basis for screening rather than every three years, can I just simply ask?I know that the government aren't intending on doing that, because we've seen the written response from the government in advance of this debate. But what further evidence does the government need to be able to achieve?What the petitioners are asking?
19:17
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
As I said, that age X trial has been running since 2009. That has been looking at younger and older, and that is due to report next year. So hopefully the evidence will be there. That hopefully might be the further evidence that will be needed. But that is already in train. And um, these decisions are not taken lightly, as I'm sure he appreciates. Um the opposition spokesperson also asked me about a I. We are also supporting the early detection using.
Information technology and health or the Edith trial. This will test new AI technology that could enable one specialist rather than two, as currently required to complete the same mammogram screening process. Increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety and. We are entering a new era, as I think we all realize in science and technology and advances in data genomics and predictive and analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person's individual risk.
A new tool, such as liquid biopsies and other non-invasive tests, may help us detect cancer much earlier and often before symptoms appear, and the NHS is preparing to seize these breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation and the National Cancer Plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, and these include artificial intelligence, assisted interpretation of pathology, images for success, suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and 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 it is to save more lives, diagnose cancer earlier, and do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm and, um, the. I want to, because I have a little bit of time to, um, refer to. Uh, yes.
Information technology and health or the Edith trial. This will test new AI technology that could enable one specialist rather than two, as currently required to complete the same mammogram screening process. Increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety and. We are entering a new era, as I think we all realize in science and technology and advances in data genomics and predictive and analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person's individual risk.
A new tool, such as liquid biopsies and other non-invasive tests, may help us detect cancer much earlier and often before symptoms appear, and the NHS is preparing to seize these breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation and the National Cancer Plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, and these include artificial intelligence, assisted interpretation of pathology, images for success, suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and 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 it is to save more lives, diagnose cancer earlier, and do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm and, um, the. I want to, because I have a little bit of time to, um, refer to. Uh, yes.
19:20
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I, I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. I'm just interested in the, the possibilities of the, of AI helping with detection and speeding up that process, but also potentially freeing up resource to be able to direct further into greater earlier detection by, by focusing on other, on spending those resources on potential screenings for younger, for younger women. Because if we are going to harness the potential of AI, surely the first thing we should do is to be able to redirect the resources that are saved into making sure that we can save more lives, potentially those young women that have campaigned so strongly on this petition.
19:20
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Um, and yes, and saving more lives and freeing up resources is exactly what we, we should be doing. And as I say, the Ajax trial and other evidence that has been looked at, um, will be happening within the next year. Um, and so hopefully for the yourself and others here today and the campaigners, um the, if the evidence is strong enough, it will be looked at and things will change. Um I want to um I've got a number of um other issues that colleagues raised that I want to touch on.
Um the member for Wokingham, um who is chair of the, the all party group for breast cancer. Um he always reminds us that it isn't just women. There's 6000. A year who, uh, still die from breast cancer and a small proportion of that number will still be men. And it is always important that we remember that. And he's doing an amazing job. Um, as the chair of the all party group. If I'm here and the, the lead you speaks for the opposition here.
My, the honourable gentleman is often here as well. Um so we become a regular trio in these, debates. Um I find on a Monday um also I must mention my hon. Friend the member for Mid Cheshire who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah. And, uh, her husband partner David. Um, so tragic. Um, and I want to thank him for sharing that and want him to know that, you know, for all of us here who heard that, um, that already.
He was not in vain. I think, you know, he said he wanted to make sure that, um, that had been heard and how tragic and the consequences and long lasting the effect of this awful disease is not just on those who suffer, but the, the wider family. My honourable friend the member for Portsmouth North also asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I can't let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. Um, so I'm pleased to, um.
Report that also, um, the honourable lady who speaks for the opposition raised the very important issue of um women with physical disabilities. And um the NHS and we've spoken about this before and the NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities. As I know she's aware and unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women, where 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, a woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about attending, amending the designs of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of mammography. Mammogram in these specific circumstances, I can also reassure her that the workforce plan is still imminent and nothing further to add on that one. And also, as she is aware, um, with regard to lobular breast cancer and the moonshot project, as she is aware, in April, uh, earlier this year, myself and Lord Vallance, the Minister for science, innovation, Research and Nuclear, alongside and NIH and MRC representatives met with the Lobular moonshot project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area.
And following that meeting earlier this month, the scientific Roundtable on Lobular Breast Cancer was organized and Lord Vallance hosted the Round Table and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired the discussion. The scientific roundtable considered the challenges and opportunities, opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research, and the NIH is actively encouraging high quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a high late notice in late 2025. So we are hoping they will, um, make an application for that. I cannot leave the house today, Mr.
Vickers, without stating one message as clearly as I can. Um, if any, if honourable members or any of your constituents or at any time worried about breast cancer symptoms such as a lump or an area of thickened tissue in the breast, or any change in how your breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be. Please do not wait to be offered screening. Um. Please contact your GP at any stage. Coming forward early as we know and as Jemma knows more than most of us can, and her friends can make all the difference.
Um, and I just want to make sure that record goes that message goes out loud and clear. Thank you.
Um the member for Wokingham, um who is chair of the, the all party group for breast cancer. Um he always reminds us that it isn't just women. There's 6000. A year who, uh, still die from breast cancer and a small proportion of that number will still be men. And it is always important that we remember that. And he's doing an amazing job. Um, as the chair of the all party group. If I'm here and the, the lead you speaks for the opposition here.
My, the honourable gentleman is often here as well. Um so we become a regular trio in these, debates. Um I find on a Monday um also I must mention my hon. Friend the member for Mid Cheshire who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah. And, uh, her husband partner David. Um, so tragic. Um, and I want to thank him for sharing that and want him to know that, you know, for all of us here who heard that, um, that already.
He was not in vain. I think, you know, he said he wanted to make sure that, um, that had been heard and how tragic and the consequences and long lasting the effect of this awful disease is not just on those who suffer, but the, the wider family. My honourable friend the member for Portsmouth North also asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I can't let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. Um, so I'm pleased to, um.
Report that also, um, the honourable lady who speaks for the opposition raised the very important issue of um women with physical disabilities. And um the NHS and we've spoken about this before and the NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities. As I know she's aware and unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women, where 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, a woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about attending, amending the designs of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of mammography. Mammogram in these specific circumstances, I can also reassure her that the workforce plan is still imminent and nothing further to add on that one. And also, as she is aware, um, with regard to lobular breast cancer and the moonshot project, as she is aware, in April, uh, earlier this year, myself and Lord Vallance, the Minister for science, innovation, Research and Nuclear, alongside and NIH and MRC representatives met with the Lobular moonshot project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area.
And following that meeting earlier this month, the scientific Roundtable on Lobular Breast Cancer was organized and Lord Vallance hosted the Round Table and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired the discussion. The scientific roundtable considered the challenges and opportunities, opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research, and the NIH is actively encouraging high quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a high late notice in late 2025. So we are hoping they will, um, make an application for that. I cannot leave the house today, Mr.
Vickers, without stating one message as clearly as I can. Um, if any, if honourable members or any of your constituents or at any time worried about breast cancer symptoms such as a lump or an area of thickened tissue in the breast, or any change in how your breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be. Please do not wait to be offered screening. Um. Please contact your GP at any stage. Coming forward early as we know and as Jemma knows more than most of us can, and her friends can make all the difference.
Um, and I just want to make sure that record goes that message goes out loud and clear. Thank you.
19:26
19:26
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Vickers. It's 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 is 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 this can impact on the take up of screening opportunities, and we must do more to address this going forward. The NHS ten Year Plan has committed to diagnosing 75% of cancers early by 2028, and the National Cancer Plan has 75% five year survival target for all cancers.
19:27
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
And cancer in particular, the most common type of cancer in women. I'd like to thank. I would like to finish by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, again and congratulate her for gathering over 106,000 signatures, which is a great achievement. I would also like to thank Lily Percy, Sophie Conway and Lily from Coppafeel. Neela, Gubert and Hannah Maber from Breast Cancer now. Christina Visintin and Ros Given-wilson from the UK National Screening Committee. Professor Sasha Howell and Sarah Hindmarsh from Manchester University for meeting with me and my team before before this debate.
And finally, as always, I would like to thank the staff of the Petitions Committee who work tirelessly every week to make sure these debates go ahead in such a smooth and effective way.
And finally, as always, I would like to thank the staff of the Petitions Committee who work tirelessly every week to make sure these debates go ahead in such a smooth and effective way.