Westminster Hall

Monday 29 June 2026

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and a privilege to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The creator of the petition, Bea Elton, joins us in the Public Gallery. Bea does not work day to day in the protection of animals; she provides a cleaning service for those in need and who are struggling to keep their homes in order. She documents this on her Instagram channel, cleanwithbeax, which has more than 2.2 million followers—probably about the same number as the Minister has.

Bea was kind enough to meet me online ahead of today’s debate—it is lucky she did not meet me in my office, because there was quite a lot of cleaning to do on my desk. Meeting Bea made clear to me her passion and sense of duty for those less fortunate than herself. While deep cleaning homes, Bea has uncovered the awful situations in which some animals find themselves vulnerable to serious neglect and abuse.

It is important to note the distinction between abuse and neglect. Abuse is distinguished by intent. Some people unintentionally neglect their animals due to circumstances beyond their control, such as financial difficulty or mental distress. Those people are not the concern of this petition, which is focused on intentional abuse. The abuse we are discussing today is not the professional cruelty of organised criminals running illegal dogfights or breeding operations, which are well known to the police, or abusive commercial practices in farms; it is about the hidden cruelty inflicted in domestic settings up and down the country.

Bea emphasised to me that her focus is on abuse committed in the domestic, rather than the commercial setting. Unfortunately, the most recent statistics from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the main investigative body for offences under the current legislation, confirm that Bea’s experiences reflect the situation across our society. In 2022, 400 pet owners were convicted on evidence gathered by the RSPCA in its investigations. I put on record my thanks to the RSPCA for its tireless work in this space right across our country.

The abuse of animals offends our deepest instincts of fairness and kindness. These animals are utterly blameless, yet uniquely vulnerable. The more animals Bea found in this predicament, the stronger became her conviction that the current system for preventing animal abuse is inadequate. One of Bea’s most pressing concerns is that the system fails to prevent animal abuse from occurring in the first place.

In short, Bea’s petition requests that those convicted of animal abuse be prohibited from owning animals again, and that their conviction be listed on a national register that can be accessed by breeders, charities, vets, local authorities and other appropriate organisations. In response, the Government have rejected the demands on the grounds that the current provisions are sufficient; I will return to those points later in my remarks.

I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue to the House; I am very sympathetic.

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

I think that is a separate issue, but legislation on XL bullies already exists and it needs to be properly enforced.

Animal abuse convictions are most often made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and sexual abuse is covered by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. An individual convicted under the Animal Welfare Act can face up to five years in prison and can be subject to a court issued disqualification order preventing them from owning animals for the rest of their life, although the court decides the specific terms of the order.

The experts I spoke to in preparation for this debate—I thank Claire McParland, Dr David Martin and Mark Randell—agree that the current legislative framework is a significant improvement on the previous legislation, under which animal cruelty was largely prosecuted as criminal damage and sentences were often a little lenient for organised crime. The Government note in their response that all “offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are currently stored on the Police National Computer. This information may be shared with appropriate organisations”

and with members of the public in specific circumstances. However, the records of convictions under the earlier legislation are less comprehensive.

Under the current system, the reporting of suspected offences is an inevitable challenge. Most reports of animal abuse come from the public, which makes enforcement more reactive than preventive. One risk of a national register is that it could make people less likely to report, because they may assume that the authorities already have the matter in hand. Once the RSPCA begins to investigate a report, it can request information from the police about any previous convictions, but that process can be slow and there is no guarantee that the police will release the information. A dedicated national register would, of course, make that easier.

Another route through which animal abuse can be investigated is when police forces discover abuse while investigating other reports. Dr David Martin, who has decades of experience as an expert witness in animal abuse cases, stressed to me that the collaboration between the police and the RSPCA is very effective in England, Scotland and Wales. Local teams know who to call when they have a query or come across animal abuse in their day to day activities. On the other hand, Mark Randell, a former police officer who has spent decades campaigning for improvements to the police response to animal abuse, said that identifying animal abuse is not standardised across police forces, and understanding of how animal abuse fits into broader safeguarding varies greatly between police forces across the country. We should consider standardised training so that there is not a postcode lottery.

Despite the difficulties, the RSPCA successfully prosecutes hundreds of cases each year. Although disqualification orders are at the discretion of the court, the petition requests that bans be made automatic upon conviction. That might reduce instances of animal abuse, especially if coupled with a national register available to vets and rehoming charities. However, in a liberal democracy, we evaluate proposals for punishing crimes based not simply on how effectively they prevent recurrence, but on whether the punishment is proportionate, and it is not clear that automatic lifetime bans are proportionate.

An automatic ban has no regard for whether the perpetrator is entirely responsible for their crime. For example, they could be in a coercive or controlling relationship, or could themselves be a victim of abuse, which might drive them to inflict harm on animals. In such cases, it is harder to establish with certainty that they are responsible for the crime, so an automatic ban may be disproportionate.

Across Cornwall, there are dozens of cases of animal abuse every year and animal abuse is a blight on our duchy, so I welcome the principle of an abuser register. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not just add perpetrators to the register, but ensure that the threat of custodial sentences is strong enough that they know they will be punished for their crimes?

I agree. The threat of prosecution was strengthened by the 2006 Act, which has aided in preventing abuse. When the Government review the animal welfare legislation, they should take that into consideration.

A lifetime ban ignores the possibility that offenders may change their ways. In this country, we believe that those who break the law can be rehabilitated into law abiding society. Imagine a case in which a child or young adult commits abuse against an animal. What if they are locking that animal in a cupboard to protect it from a violent parent? A lifetime ban would mean that they would be unable to have such a pet in their retirement, which feels disproportionate.

When the argument is considered from that perspective, the discretionary nature of disqualification orders appears to be a strength: judges have the freedom to consider the offender’s circumstances, which may have motivated the crime. None the less, it may be the case that disqualification orders need to be issued more regularly to prevent recurrence. Guidelines could be changed to make them time limited orders when a certain level or kind of abuse has been committed.

As for the national register, the RSPCA has repeatedly stated that it is unreasonably difficult for it to access the history of an alleged offender. How the register works in practice must be considered carefully. Bea wants the register to be accessible to appropriate organisations, but not the general public, which would avoid giving rise to animal abuse vigilantism, the likes of which we have seen spreading on social media in other cases.

Alongside access, there is also the question of what information the register should contain. A public register may be less effective if it is simply a snapshot of past offending. As I noted earlier, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act are only part of the picture, and a register of convictions is not as detailed as the archive of RSPCA intelligence. Information must be comprehensive and up to date if it is to be truly effective for relevant agencies.

A more useful alternative might therefore be a disclosure scheme akin to Clare’s law, which enables police to disclose information about an individual’s history of violence or abuse where there is a credible risk to their partner. That scheme is on a statutory footing, requiring police forces to give reasons if they do not wish to make a disclosure. The family of Holly Bramley have been campaigning for an animal abuse register and police disclosure scheme since her tragic murder in 2023. Holly’s killer was a prolific abuser and killer of animals and he used the threat of animal abuse to control Holly. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence cannot be ignored, and it is key to this debate. We owe it to Holly to take action.

My hon. Friend makes a valid link between the abuse of animals and of human beings. I thank the petitioner, Bea, for bringing this issue to this place, because it shines a spotlight on both forms of abuse. The RSPCA has reported that 71% of domestic violence victims suffer death threats to their pets, too. Does that not prove that we need to be more sophisticated in how we record crimes of animal abuse, so that we capture the wider sense that these people are a threat not just to animals, but to their wives, their partners and everyone else?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was shocked by some of the evidence I heard while preparing for this debate about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. As the Government consider the next steps, that must be key to their thinking. I understand that the RSPCA is in discussions with the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse, and I would welcome an update on those discussions from the Minister.

In just three months, Bea’s petition has received more than 238,000 signatures, illustrating the depth of feeling across our country about abuse against animals. That feeling, together with the expert opinion of organisations such as the RSPCA, indicates that the current provisions against animal abuse are not adequate. An automatic life ban for convicted abusers appears to be a disproportionate response, though questions remain about whether disqualification orders are being used as frequently as they should be. A public register of convictions is similarly unsuitable. However, a version of Clare’s law for animal abuse might strike the right balance, allowing the appropriate agencies up to date access and intelligence when they need it, in order to intervene before abuse is committed. I thank Bea for creating this petition and allowing this necessary debate—my office is a prime candidate if she wants to conduct another spring clean.

I begin by thanking Bea Elton and the near quarter of a million petitioners who have brought this issue to the attention of the House of Commons. 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, which became the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In fact, the RSPCA was created 60 years before a similar charity for children, which perhaps says something about the unique attachment we on these islands have to our animals. In 1822, we became the first state to create laws against animal cruelty, again before some prescient ones with respect to humans. Animal charities receive millions of pounds more every year than charities for children do. All of that tells us that the British love their animals; I certainly do.

I am here on behalf of my constituents 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, where we have such a deep sentimental attachment to our animals, we allow people who have been known to abuse animals to take charge of them again. It should be the law of the land that if somebody has been convicted of knowingly abusing an animal, they are never in charge of one again. I strongly support the purpose of the petition.

Similarly, it is right that a register is created that is either in the public domain or, as a bare minimum, available to those who breed and sell animals—the ultimate guardians of animals, who entrust them to others—so that they can make sensible choices and not give animals to those who are known to have abused them. It is surprising that a register like that does not exist in our country already; it should do. If the petition spurs the Government to establish such a register, Bea and the quarter of a million people the length and breadth of the country who signed it will have done a good deed.

We must take better care of our pets and animals. That is obviously good for animals, but it is good for us as well. The tenderness we show animals should be something that we celebrate and take pride in when we visit other parts of the world that do not have the traditions that we have. It is part of, as I think Peter Singer described, the “ever expanding circle of empathy” where, if we treat animals well, it will encourage us to treat humans in a similar fashion.

I will finish by again thanking Bea and all of the petitioners. I encourage the Government to take up the recommendations and to create a mandatory ban and a register that is available for all those who pass animals into the custody of their fellow citizens. That will ensure that we protect animals and increase and improve the world class laws against animal cruelty that we have in this country.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all my constituents and everybody else who signed the e petition. Of course, I also thank Bea, who is in the Public Gallery today, for bringing this issue to light.

This topic matters deeply to people across the country, including in my constituency. People expect those who cause suffering to an animal to face serious consequences. More than that, they expect the law to prevent another animal from ever being put at risk again. At home, our dog Foggy is a treasured member of our family, and that is how most people feel about their pets. They rely on us, they trust us and they absolutely deserve to be safe in our care.

I recently received a letter about today’s debate from a 13-year old constituent, who is worried that someone convicted of animal abuse could go on to have another animal and cannot understand why someone who has already shown cruelty towards an animal should be given another opportunity to cause harm. It was a powerful letter, not because it came from a young person—although that certainly made it all the more striking—but because it put the matter so plainly: why should we wait until another animal has suffered before we act?

As we have heard, important powers are already available to the courts under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those convicted of an offence can be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, taking part in their care, influencing how they are kept, dealing in them or transporting them. Those powers absolutely matter. Increasing the maximum sentences for the most serious animal cruelty offences was an important step forward, but the petition raises a fair question: is the current system clear, consistent and practical enough to stop people who have been banned simply going elsewhere and acquiring another animal? A conviction may be recorded and a disqualification order may be made, but what happens when someone approaches a rescue centre, a breeder or another organisation to take on an animal? How does that organisation know whether the person standing in front of them has a history of serious cruelty or has been banned by a court from keeping animals? At present, the answer seems far too uncertain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we surely need to close the loophole whereby banned owners can give their pets or farm animals to their wife or husband to own, and still live with them?

Absolutely; there is no place for legal loopholes like that in our country, where we love our animals so much.

The Government have referred to the police national computer and to existing arrangements for information sharing. I recognise that there are important safeguards around personal information and data protection that we must be aware of, but a record held somewhere in the system is not the same as a practical safeguarding tool that can stop a banned person acquiring another animal. That is the point behind the petition, and it is a point that we should take very seriously. This Labour Government were elected on a commitment to strengthen animal welfare, including through action on puppy farming and smuggling, snare traps, trail hunting and hunting trophies. We should now look carefully at whether the animal protection provided after a cruelty conviction is strong enough in practice.

I believe there is a serious case for a properly governed national safeguarding scheme for those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences and subject to ownership bans. It would not need to be a public database. This should not be about naming and shaming people or allowing uncontrolled access to sensitive information; it should be a proportionate safeguarding measure, with clear rules on who can make a check, when they can do so, and what information they can receive. It can be managed, is what I am saying.

Animal rescue and rehoming organisations, veterinary professionals, local authorities, licensing bodies and responsible breeders should be able to establish whether an individual is prohibited from keeping an animal before an animal is placed in that person’s care. We rightly recognise that information sometimes needs to be shared to protect children, vulnerable adults and the wider public. I believe we should be willing to consider a careful and proportionate approach that protects animals from people with a proven record of cruelty or neglect.

The petition calls for automatic life bans following convictions for animal abuse or neglect. I understand why it has attracted such strong support. For the gravest cases, particularly those involving deliberate, sustained or repeated cruelty, the future protection of animals must be at the heart of the court’s decision. There should be a strong presumption that someone who has shown such serious cruelty should not be entrusted with the care of an animal again. Courts must retain the ability to consider the individual circumstances of the case, but where a serious offender receives only a short ban, or no ban at all, there should be clear reasons for that decision.

This is not simply about punishment; it is about prevention. Animal cruelty can be part of a wider pattern of harm, as we have heard. It can sit alongside coercive control, domestic abuse and violence within a household, which makes early identification and effective safeguarding even more important, so I ask the Minister to look carefully at what more can be done. Will the Government consider consulting on a national animal welfare safeguarding disclosure scheme, so that responsible organisations can check whether a prospective owner has been convicted of serious cruelty or banned from keeping animals previously? Will the Government consider whether the law should create a stronger expectation of lengthy and, where appropriate, lifetime ownership bans in serious and repeated cases? Will they also publish clearer information on the number of disqualification orders made, how long they last, how often they are breached, and what action is taken when they are ignored?

My 13-year old constituent is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a system that works, before another animal is intentionally harmed. That is a basic test of whether our animal welfare laws are doing what the public expect them to do. For my 13-year old constituent, for Bea, for all those who signed the petition and for every wonderful, beautiful animal we love, we should always try to meet that test.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his opening speech, particularly for talking about the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. I also thank the people from my constituency who signed the petition, and the petitioner for creating it.

Animal abuse is a particular type of cruelty for which perpetrators should be made accountable—but far too often, that does not happen. I was encouraged by the Government’s animal welfare strategy, which sets out a clear vision for improving animal welfare standards across the country. This Government are delivering the most comprehensive animal welfare programme in a generation, but we have the opportunity to go further. The Government could consider having a register of animal abusers and an automatic ban on ownership for all those convicted of animal abuse, to tackle the increased number of cases and reported cases that we are seeing today. In 2024, the RSPCA reported a heartbreaking increase in cases of animal and pet abuse, with their emergency line taking more than one call every 16 seconds. Therefore, I can only support the petition.

Although courts can disqualify individuals from ownership once they are convicted of animal abuse, there is no central register on which charities, vets or businesses can check if someone is banned from keeping animals before selling or rehoming to them, or even employing them to take care of animals. The Government have said that having a public register would not be appropriate, because it would run the risk of exposing a person on the register to vigilantism. However, a closed register that is only accessible by, for example, vets, breeders and charities could remedy that problem. A closed register, alongside a mandatory ban, would serve as a deterrent to animal abusers, especially repeat offenders.

Statistics show that abuse of pets is on the rise, and I have been made aware of an increase in animal abuse content being shared online, so I can only support the petition. The vast majority of pets are not simply animals to us, but members of our families. We recognise that although animal cruelty is on the rise, it is the exception; many pets across the country can safely rely on their owners for consistent care, safety and kindness. However, all animals deserve the best lives possible, so I ask the Government to build on the foundations that they laid in the animal welfare strategy.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for what I think is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for, as always, introducing the debate so thoughtfully as a member of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to the petition. Colleagues may have been hoping to have an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I am afraid that today is not that day.

The petitions that we debate are not often started by social media influencers, but it is because of the determination of Bea Elton—known to her millions of followers, myself included, as Clean with Bea—that we are able to debate this important issue today. I will forgive hon. Members who have not yet watched Bea’s videos if they are on their phones throughout my speech. Bea offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies. Sadly, she often comes across animals that have been neglected and have had to live in awful conditions. I am glad that Bea has used her experience and platform to bring the issue to Parliament. I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, as I know that preventing the needless suffering of animals unites us all, across the political spectrum.

Last autumn, I went on a ride along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looked like for her. My constituency is full of pet owners, and who can blame them—why would anyone who lives somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase not get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together? However, I admit that I do not have a pet, not because I do not love animals, but because I could not give one the time and attention that it deserves—I often joke that I have two young kids and that is enough for now.

This debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right; it is a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie reinforced that. Like many people, I assumed that most of an RSPCA inspector’s work involved rescuing animals from awful situations—and of course, they do that, in tandem with the police—but what surprised me was how much of their time is spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spend hours following up with owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example, and they work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores inspectors’ advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate.

One thing that has stayed with me from that day is that many cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, as we have heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it reminds us that animal welfare is often connected to the wider challenges in somebody’s life.

We also know, as we have heard, that the relationship can work the other way. The Ruby’s law campaign highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control, knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. Nine in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals is not separate from protecting people; sometimes it is part of the very same task. That is why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals, so it relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors cannot force entry into a property if access is refused.

The experience left me with one clear thought: our system does a reasonable job of responding once abuse has happened, but I am not convinced that it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As hon. Members have highlighted, the Government’s response to the petition states that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals. That is absolutely true, but rescue centres, breeders and pet shops cannot routinely check those records, so somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming the animal have no way of checking whether that person has been disqualified. That does not mean the law has comprehensively failed; it means there is a gap in the system.

Breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first. Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we should not be relying on chance or left hoping that somebody will spot what has happened when another animal is already suffering. Surely it is better to stop the animal being placed there in the first place.

I understand the Government’s concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as hon. Members have already outlined. If a register was available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers, it would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over. It would not be to name and shame, or to publish personal information, but to answer one simple question: can this person legally keep and care for an animal?

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

I will never miss an opportunity to thank the RSPCA, including in Leeds South West and Morley and the East Ardsley centre. My hon. Friend is right that RSPCA staff and volunteers often face abuse themselves because many people are rightly passionate about protecting animals, but it is important to remember that their powers are far more limited than perhaps many of us realise. They are as determined as anybody to do the right thing by animals, so we need to make sure that they are given as many powers as are appropriate and that we support them in doing their important work. The enemy are the people who commit the abuse, not the people who try to help.

The Government are right that judges should retain discretion over the terms of disqualification orders. Every case is different, and rehabilitation should always remain possible where appropriate, but once someone has been convicted of egregious animal abuse, a ban should be automatic and should have a practical effect. The petition is not asking us to reinvent the wheel. The convictions already exist and the courts already have the powers. All we are asking is to close one obvious gap in the system so that trusted organisations have the information they need to stop known offenders acquiring another vulnerable animal. I say to the Minister that if that change could prevent even a handful of animals suffering, it would be a step well worth taking.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this hugely important debate; the petitioners and Bea Elton for getting so many signatures, which is why we are discussing this issue; and Holly’s family, who are turning an absolute tragedy into something that could have a positive legacy. That is very courageous.

In my many years of working in veterinary practice, one observation always stuck with me: how people treat animals is often a reflection of how they treat the people closest to them. People who treat animals with unfailing kindness tend to be some of the kindest people you will ever meet. If people deliberately inflict suffering on a defenceless animal, it is often a warning sign that that violence will extend beyond the animal and into the home. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic animal champion; he has done fantastic work on puppy smuggling. Does he agree not only that there should be stronger sentencing powers, but that those with a proven track record of serious animal abuse and harm should face complete ownership bans?

I totally agree. We should be clear that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a very big difference between someone who causes suffering to an animal for a variety of reasons, such as mental health issues or ignorance, or through neglect, and someone who deliberately causes harm to an animal because they have a sadistic personality or want to feel powerful. In this debate, it is important to consider the motivation behind causing the suffering: if someone causes deliberate suffering, it indicates that they may well cause harm to other people around them.

As a vet, it is always unsettling to treat a dog with a broken rib that could have resulted from a kick when the owner says that it fell down the stairs, for example. That is a very unusual thing for a dog to do, and it would be very unusual to break a rib as a result. My concern in those situations, beyond treating the animal in front of me, extends to the people living in closest proximity to the person who has brought in the dog. We know that people sometimes even coerce their partner to stay with them instead of leaving by threatening to harm their pet. On that note, I pay tribute to organisations such as Trinity in Winchester, which has a refuge for people fleeing domestic abuse that allows them to take their pets with them, because that is a barrier to people escaping that situation. Cats Protection and Dogs Trust have very similar schemes, and they are hugely important.

As vets, we are trained to recognise the early signs of diseases so that we can treat them before they become irreversible, and I believe we should take the same approach to violence. Animal abuse is not always an isolated act of cruelty; sometimes it is the first symptom of something much more dangerous. That is why I take every opportunity to discuss the important work of the Links Group, which highlights the evidence linking animal abuse with domestic abuse and other forms of violence.

I ask the Minister to consider three measures. First, when someone has been convicted of abusing an animal, that information should be 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. The issue at the moment is that the abuse of an animal is often prosecuted under animal welfare laws and does not show up when people look for historical allegations of or convictions for domestic violence.

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. That means that if someone has sexually abused an animal, they are prosecuted under animal welfare laws and there is no way of tracking them, although they have a higher likelihood of committing sexual violence against other people as well. That cannot be right; it is an anomaly that this House should fix. Thirdly, anyone convicted of 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.

Holly’s killer had abused animals since the age of eight. He had admitted it and the RSPCA knew about it, but the legal and justice systems that are in place did not allow anyone to join those dots. We cannot allow that to happen again. By clamping down hard on deliberate animal abuse, we can protect women, spouses, children and animals from future harm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This is an important debate, and I thank Bea for highlighting the issue through the petition.

We have had many contributions. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) clearly set out the background to the petition and the challenges in identifying and enforcing convictions for animal abuse. The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) highlighted the importance of and the care that we all feel for our pets and animals. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) discussed the need to think about prevention alongside punishment.

We are all 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, to legislate and to support efforts to prevent animal cruelty. I am therefore proud to be part of a Conservative party that has a strong record on animal welfare from our time in government. We passed legislation including the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which bans the export of live animals for slaughter, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. The last Government also introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022.

I will mention one more piece of legislation, passed since the July 2024 election and introduced by a Conservative MP—me. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 shows our ongoing commitment to animal welfare. I was pleased to introduce that legislation to update the laws surrounding livestock worrying, by increasing the fine where dogs attack livestock and giving the police more powers to investigate instances of livestock worrying. I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House who supported the passage of that Act.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who introduced the debate, that I was not here at the outset; I have already apologised to you, Dr Murrison. I rise simply to highlight the association between animal cruelty and domestic abuse, which was highlighted earlier. Annette Bramley is my constituent. Her daughter Holly was killed by a wicked husband who is now enduring life in prison, although of course in a better age he would have been executed.

The connection between animal cruelty and domestic abuse is proven; I have the facts and figures, and I am happy to give them to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and to the Minister, but I will not bore the Chamber with them now. They illustrate that a huge proportion of those who are cruel to people have also been cruel to animals: there is an association that would allow us to deal with risk more effectively.

I have been working with the Government on this issue and I commend them for that work, but I wonder if the Minister can address it in his speech. It is important that we know where the Government are on that work, whether it can be done within existing legislation, or whether it will require further secondary or primary legislation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for speaking so eloquently, as he always does. I will come on to the case of his constituent and pay tribute to the work that she is doing in due course.

Because of the widespread commitment to, and support for, reducing animal cruelty, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and it is right for us to cement our status as a global leader by continuing to raise the bar. It does not surprise me that the petition we are debating today has received over 230,000 signatures, because I know this is an issue that many of our constituents rightly feel strongly about. In my constituency, 328 people have added their names to it.

Existing provisions ensure that all prosecutions for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are stored on the police national computer. That 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. What assessment has he made of the arrangement under the 2006 Act? For example, is there consistency in decisions as to when data is shared? How regularly is data being shared? Where is it being shared? Importantly, is it helping to prevent incidents of abuse?

I want to turn to the connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, because, sadly, there is a link, and perpetrators of animal abuse too often also abuse people. That has been highlighted by cases such as the tragic murder of Holly Bramley, as we have heard, which has not only boosted awareness, but increased demand for a public register. I commend her mother Annette for turning an unimaginably difficult situation into a campaign that honours her daughter’s legacy and focuses on ensuring that the link between animal and domestic violence is properly recorded.

The RSPA highlighted that 2.3 million adults experienced domestic abuse in 2024, and 71% of victims reported a threat to their pets. Figures such as that should give us serious cause for concern. What steps is the Minister taking to work with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure a cohesive approach to tackling the link between animal and domestic abuse?

I want to recognise the important work being done by the veterinary profession to highlight that link—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is married to a veterinary surgeon and as an owner of a veterinary business. The work of the Links Group, which is chaired by Dr Paula Boyden, former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, is helping to inform vets on the frontline who may be exposed to cases that need action. I hope the Minister will join me in acknowledging the importance of that work and outline whether the Government are engaging with the veterinary profession, including the Links Group, the British Veterinary Association and other stakeholders, to support that work.

Pets are too often used as a means of coercion and control against those experiencing domestic abuse. That is 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, it highlighted 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 those are exactly the kinds of initiatives we should be championing to raise awareness of this issue? 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 that all Members will encourage anyone who is experiencing domestic abuse or worried about animal abuse to come forward and seek help. Police forces, including Cheshire constabulary in my area, have safe ways for people to report abuse, and I want anyone listening to this debate to know that you do not have to face it alone; help is available and I 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 that we can identify abuse earlier, protect more victims and prevent further harm. Ultimately, that is what every one of us in this House wants to achieve.

Although the Government have said in their written response to the petition that they will not introduce a public register, given the number of U turns that have been made thus far, I am not certain whether that position can be relied on. However, what 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 of their despicable actions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank him for the thoughtful way he set out the issues raised in the petition. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions on establishing a public register for animal abusers and the automatic ownership ban.

The petition has attracted significant public support, with more than 235,000 signatures, clearly demonstrating how strongly people across the country feel about protecting animals. I commend the tireless campaigning of Bea and her supporters. As a dog lover—and the owner of 11-year old labradoodle Albert Attlee, who brings real joy to my family and me—I share the petitioners’ deep concern about animal cruelty. 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 2004 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.

However, we must also confront the harsh reality that animal abuse still occurs often and in deeply distressing ways that shock the conscience and undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Cases of neglect, cruelty and deliberate harm continue to surface, reminding us that the protections we have in place, while important, are not always enough to prevent suffering or deter repeat offending. That reality drives the strength of feeling behind this petition. Where abuse occurs, we want animals to be protected, offenders to be held accountable and to make sure that further harm is not caused. The challenge is not whether to act, but how best to achieve lasting protection for animals.

I will first address the proposal for automatic lifetime bans 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. Judicial discretion is not a weakness in the legislation; it is a strength. It enables courts to impose the strongest possible restrictions where they are needed, while ensuring fairness and proportionality. Introducing an automatic lifetime ban in all cases would remove that discretion.

I now turn to the proposal for a public register of animal abusers. I understand why there is public support for the idea, and the reassurance it is intended to provide, but there are already systems in place to record and share this 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. 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, including the potential for harassment and misuse of personal data. The more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the right time.

I also recognise the concerns raised by campaigns such as Holly’s law and Ruby’s law, which Members have raised today. They speak to a serious issue: the link between animal abuse, domestic abuse and coercive control. The Government take 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. DEFRA is supporting wider, cross Government work in this area, led by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I 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. That is why the right information must reach the right people at the right time through lawful and targeted safeguarding routes.

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence, given that I was not here at the beginning. He is right that the sharing of information is critical among all the agencies that deal with domestic abuse and animal cruelty, but the Government may need to weave this into their bigger piece of work, which he will be aware of, on risk—dealing with risk in a rather different way, reinforcing some of the existing guidance and possibly even statute. We spoke about Holly’s law, which does not necessarily need to be primary legislation, but does need to have statutory force. Statutory guidance may be the answer in this respect. I do not prejudge that; I simply put it on the record for the Minister to discuss with his compatriots in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

The right hon. Member is a tireless champion on these issues, having met the former Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office and written to Baroness Hayman following his business question last year. I assure him that officials are continuing to work across Government on the points that came out of his meeting with the Minister, and I will certainly take away the points that he just raised.

I totally understand the need for safeguards so that disclosures are not used as an excuse for harassment or inappropriate release of data. Sexually abusing an animal does not mean that someone is on the sex offenders register, and the committing of deliberate acts of violence against an animal would not automatically be included in domestic violence disclosure; but, given the way that information is recorded and stored currently, even if the police wanted to and thought it appropriate, it is unlikely that they would be able to disclose it. Would the Minister meet me to discuss how we ensure that these offences are at least recorded in a way that means that they could be disclosed if deemed necessary and appropriate?

I thank the hon. Member for the insight that he, as a vet, brings to the debate. I am very happy to take his suggestions and views back to the Department. He will know that animal welfare is not within my portfolio—it is the responsibility of Baroness Hayman—but I will take back his suggestions and concerns and explore that further.

rose—

I will make some progress, but I am happy to take away the action and share it with my ministerial colleague.

We heard at the start of the debate that, more broadly, the Government are committed to strengthening animal welfare protections and raising standards across the system. That is why, last December, we published our ambitious animal welfare strategy for England. This strategy is not a 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. It includes practical action to promote sensible, responsible pet ownership, tackle puppy smuggling, end low welfare puppy farming and explore further protections.

That matters, because many welfare problems begin long before prosecution is brought. They can start with poor breeding, poor socialisation, lack of knowledge or owners unable to meet an animal’s needs. 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, the RSPCA alone secured more than 1,000 prosecutions in 2024, which shows the scale of that continuing work. That is why the Government’s approach is both practical and preventive. We want to stop animals suffering wherever we can, not only respond once harm has already happened. That means helping owners to understand their duties, providing early advice and ensuring people know where to turn before welfare problems escalate. It also means improving traceability through stronger microchipping and better records so that lost animals can be reunited with their owners, and that irresponsible breeders or owners cannot avoid accountability. Taken together, those measures provide a clear direction, prevent cruelty earlier, target enforcement where risk is greatest, and protect animals through proportionate, workable and lawful safeguards.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions and for speaking so passionately on behalf of their constituents and those who signed the petition. I commend the work of the RSPCA and all organisations that support animal welfare across our country. The Government are clear about our commitment to protecting animals from cruelty, neglect and exploitation, and to ensuring 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.

Although we recognise the good intention behind the calls for a 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 the 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. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues and stakeholders to ensure the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It is great that there has been cross party support. I hope Bea is happy about that, because that does not always happen in this place, but I think that is because we are a nation of animal lovers, as the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked whether the current systems are enough to stop a convicted animal abuser from simply buying another animal, and I think the answer is no. The Minister says that the Government want a disclosure scheme, but we need to consider how that would work in practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about partners being able to buy pets. The Government should look at that loophole, but the Minister did not mention it in his speech.

I am always keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury)—particularly when he makes insightful points and people think it is me making them. What he said about trusted organisations having access to some kind of register was very important.

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) has done as a vet. He spoke with great authority about people’s motivation for this crime. He talked about deliberate suffering and the warning signs of domestic abuse. As the Minister investigates this area more closely, I encourage him to work across Government with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

I hope Bea has enjoyed the debate. I thank her very much for starting the petition and I thank the quarter of a million people who signed it. Hopefully, we have some good action to take forward.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e petition 759783 relating to a public register of animal abusers and automatic ownership bans.

Sitting suspended.

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered e petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I would like to start by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, for all the hard work she has put into starting the petition and gathering over 106,000 signatures from across the UK. The petition is titled “Lower the age for invites to regular mammograms to 40 & perform annually”, and says: “Lower the age for when you are first called to 40 and provide funding to carry out Mammograms Annually instead of every Three Years.

Early detection is key and the prevalence of Breast Cancer in young patients is rising.

I am a Chemotherapy Nurse and working in this Clinical Setting for 8 Years and I have seen a rise in Breast Cancer in Patients under the Age of 40 increase.

Early detection is key in identifying those Aggressive forms of Breast Cancer”.

This is an issue that many people here and outside the Chamber care deeply about. Breast cancer still affects too many women, and far too many women die from it every year. I had the privilege of meeting with Gemma, who is here today. She told me about her experience of being a nurse for 15 years, eight of which have been in oncology, and about her concerns from having seen a rise in breast cancer cases in younger women, especially since covid.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer for women in the UK—one in seven women may get it. As Gemma wrote in her petition, “Early detection is key”, and has led to improved recovery and survival rates. Over half of breast cancer cases occur in women outside the national screening age, and one in six occur in women under 50. Men, too, get breast cancer; however, they make up approximately 1% of all cases. Currently, the NHS invites women to come to their first breast screening between the ages of 50 and 53, and this goes on until they are 71. They are invited every three years, after which a woman can choose to continue going for mammograms, but will not be automatically invited. Although everyone is at risk of breast cancer, women are at a higher risk if they are over 50, have dense breast tissue, have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or have particular breast conditions, for example benign breast disease.

There is a breast screening pathway for those identified as NHS targeted very high risk. It is also important to note that NICE guidelines recommend annual mammography scans for women aged between 40 and 49 at moderate risk, as well as annual mammography or MRI surveillance for some high risk groups.

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Unfortunately, many women are diagnosed with this cancer each year. Invasive lobular breast cancer accounts for some 15% of all breast cancer cases, yet it is 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. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister—I believe she is sympathetic to this—must undertake to incorporate advanced screening technologies, such as contrast enhanced mammography or MRI, into the NHS pathway for women with dense breast tissue or a suspected lobular profile? The Government must grasp the issue and do something now.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that issue.

Some 1.94 million women between the ages of 50 and 70 were screened in 2024-25, and almost 20,000 cancers were detected. Cancers were detected in nine in every 1,000 women, which is a 16% increase on the previous year. Attendance to screening reached the highest level in a decade and has been championed by charities such as Breast Cancer Now, which shares public figures, stories and personal messages.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Does she share my concern about the difference between the numbers of first time attendees to screening and returning attendees, at 89.1% and 63% respectively? Does she have a view on how we can increase the number attending their first screening?

Screening is key, and we have to be bolder and more inventive about how we get people along to screening. There have been many public health campaigns over the years. After a campaign, there is always a rise in attendance, but when the campaign stops, attendance falls again, so I agree that that is something that the Minister must look at.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) makes a valid point. Is my hon. Friend aware that between 2020 and 2023, more than three in four women in Scotland took up their screening invitations? However, take up is varied based on deprivation: 64.2% of women in the most deprived areas attended, compared with 82.8% in the least deprived areas. Breast cancer survival rates reflect that; women from more deprived areas in particular are more likely to die at an earlier age, because they have not been for screening and are diagnosed late. Making screening available to people in innovative ways is important, but so too is screening people in their neighbourhoods. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, that is not just the case for breast screening; bowel cancer screening is lower in areas of economic and health deprivation. We must look at how we target those populations.

It is key that we continue to increase awareness of the importance of routine health appointments and modifiable risk factors. Although screening is increasing generally, the NHS breast screening programme found that one in three women still do not take up their offer of screening. As my hon. Friend said, it is key that we continue with strategies that promote the uptake of screening in areas of lower attendance such as by running awareness campaigns, sending reminder texts and deploying mobile screening units, among other strategies. In preparing for this debate, I met Breast Cancer Now, as well as CoppaFeel!, the UK’s only youth focused breast cancer awareness charity. They call for more screening of women who have a higher risk of breast cancer, as well as providing women identified with wraparound support.

Diagnostics are key to identifying those with breast cancer successfully, although mammography is not always the best diagnostic tool, particularly for younger women and those with dense breast tissue, so it is important to invest in other diagnostics, such as MRIs, and to consider their capacity to be scaled and expanded. Younger women tend also to have denser breasts, which mammograms are worse at analysing as the scans are harder to interpret. That can lead to women having repeated scans and extended investigations.

It is important to note that most European countries screen for breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 69, although there is some variation in age ranges and frequency, with countries such as Albania, Iceland and Sweden starting screening at 40. Although breast cancer diagnoses for women under 40 are rarer, and about 4% of breast cancer cases in the UK are in women under 40, when young women get breast cancer, they are much more likely than older women to have a family history of breast cancer and genetic mutations that are associated with increased risk.

There is an ongoing trial called AgeX, which is looking at the benefits of regularly screening women aged 47 to 49 and aged 71 to 73, given how little is known about screening women outside the ages of 50 to 70. The trial took place from 2009 until 2020, and 4 million women took part. The first report to come out of the trials is due in December 2026 and the final report is due in 2031, so it will be a few years before we know its findings. Other trials include the UK age trial, led by Professor Stephen Duffy, which looked into the effectiveness of annual mammographic screening for women in their 40s and found that the mortality benefit was greatest for the first decade after screening started.

I am proud to have Walk The Walk—one of the country’s leading breast cancer charities, which has raised a huge amount of money and awareness—in my constituency. It is pushing for mammogram testing to be extended. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending it to the under-40s and the over-70s could have a notable effect on fighting this deadly cancer?

I agree, and I look forward to hearing the Minister talk about how we can take this forward.

The UK National Screening Committee is still concerned about false positives, overdiagnosis and over treatment. In 2012, Sir Michael Marmot chaired an independent review of breast screening, which found that the current UK screening programme prevents about 1,300 deaths from breast cancer annually. However, he also found that overdiagnosis meant that, for every death prevented by screening, about three women are treated for a cancer that they do not have. As breast cancer is less common in younger women, there is a concern that overdiagnosis would be much higher in that age group. False positive results can induce long lasting anxiety and an unwillingness to attend future screenings. It is important that screening programmes accurately weigh up the balance between potential harms and benefits. I am sure we will hear more about that in the debate.

It is a common misconception that breast cancer is not a problem any more, but more women die from breast cancers than from other cancers. We need to do more to look after women in their 40s and women under 40. We need risk adapted screening to better improve our chances of early detection in the most vulnerable. I look forward to hearing from other Members and the Minister.

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to contribute—as they are doing. I will not impose a time limit at this stage. If you stick to about five minutes each, we should accommodate everyone.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing the debate, and I thank everyone who signed the petition. Behind every signature is a person, a family member or a friend, who has faced the frightening possibility that cancer may be found too late. They may even have lost somebody because it was found far too late.

In Bawtry in my constituency, local people have painted the town pink over the last few years during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. They have also taken the time to promote a simple message inspired by the movie “Legally Blonde”: bend and check. It is a powerful reminder that awareness, confidence and early action can save lives. I am really glad that Epworth may also be turning the town pink later this year under Kim Penfold, who is getting shops to join in and turn their fronts pink to raise awareness of early detection and screening.

The petition calls for routine breast screening to begin at 40 and to take place annually. That is a serious and understandable ask, but we must be guided by the evidence as well as the strength of feeling. The current NHS programme invites women to be screened every three years from the age of 50 until their 71st birthday. The independent UK National Screening Committee has advised that, on the evidence currently available, lowering the age or increasing the frequency of screening could bring harm as well as benefits, as we heard from my hon. Friend. Mammograms can be less accurate for younger women with denser breast tissue, increasing the risk of false positives and unnecessary tests and treatment. However, UK Age trial findings from a study of 160,000 women over 20 years show that annual mammograms for women in their 40s significantly reduces breast cancer deaths, saving a life for 1,000 women screened—one life, millions of memories.

We cannot stand still. The question raised by this petition is therefore entirely legitimate. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed when Parliament can expect the UK National Screening Committee to consider the final AgeX trial findings and how the evidence on additional screening for women with dense breast tissue will inform future decisions.

We must also focus on the women already entitled to screening, as about three in 10 eligible women do not take up their invitation. This Labour Government’s work on digital innovations, mobile units, targeted outreach and more accessible equipment is welcome, but it must reach women in deprived communities, rural areas and communities where uptake is at its lowest.

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

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The environment that people first walk into makes a massive difference in how they feel about their screening. I went to one of those units with my wife only a couple of weeks ago—she had a lump in her breast—and the warm welcome that she got as we walked in was so amazing; it put her at ease and it put me at ease so I could support her, and it made the whole experience as good as it could possibly be. I am also thankful to say that she is doing very well.

Will the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to ensure that the people who can already go for tests go for them? No woman should wait for a screening letter if she notices a lump, a change in shape, skin changes or anything that does not feel right. Whatever their age, they should contact their GP. Early diagnosis gives people more options, more time and often the chance to see children and grandchildren grow up. That is why this petition matters, and that is why, ultimately, we need to act on it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her thoughtful opening remarks. I pay tribute to all those affected by breast cancer, those facing diagnosis, and their families, friends and carers who stand beside them. It is their experiences that make this debate so important. I also pay tribute to my constituents for signing this petition, and I thank the petitioner for starting it in the first place.

I welcome the Government’s ambition for the national cancer plan, which commits the NHS to ensuring that, by 2035, 75% of people diagnosed with cancer will be cancer free and living well five years after diagnosis. The plan will also develop further AI assisted interpretation of images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis, and it will help us to detect breast cancer in women under 50 with denser breast tissue.

Under the last Government, cancer performance targets had not been met since 2014, leaving too many women facing delays and poor health outcomes. However, I know that my constituents want this Government to go further and to include women aged 40 in routine invitations for breast cancer screening. According to CoppaFeel!, cases of breast cancer in under-50s are on the rise. A recent report states that we have seen a 5% increase in the last year. Patients under 50 are more likely to have their symptoms missed and to be diagnosed at a later stage in their cancer journey compared with those over 50.

That issue is even more pronounced for women from minority and ethnic backgrounds and for those from deprived and rural areas, who have less access to screening opportunities in their communities. Additional public health attention needs to be paid to that. According to Breast Cancer Research, those groups are 10% more likely to begin treatment after the cancer has already become invasive and 20% more likely to require a mastectomy.

To achieve our cancer outcome aspirations, I ask the Minister to extend routine mammogram invitations to women from the age of 40. I hope she will also consider the roll out of alternative diagnostic measures that will affect the diagnosis of younger women.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am also a member. Cancer is an issue that touches most of us, nearly every single day. No doubt we will all have had a friend or family member with cancer, and I am grateful that this petition has given us the opportunity to debate such an important issue.

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 Worth Valley as a district councillor on Bradford council, and Chris Graham, a former Keighley town councillor who served the Longley and Parkwood wards. Their recent losses are still felt very much across the communities that I am lucky enough to represent.

We have rightly had several recent opportunities to debate the issue of cancer, but today’s debate is particularly important, as 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 and 11,200 deaths each year. That equates to about 31 deaths every single day, which is far too many.

This important petition calls for early diagnosis, which is crucial. According to Cancer Research UK, 76.6% of women survive for 10 years or more after being diagnosed, and 85% of those are diagnosed at an early stage. I agree with the petition, and I thank Gemma Reeves for starting it, as well all those who kindly put their name to it, including from across my constituency.

It is right to call for early screening at the age of 40. There is compelling evidence that early detection saves lives. Breast cancers identified at an early stage are genuinely smaller and less likely to have spread, and they require less aggressive treatment. Early diagnosis and early screening are key. Early diagnosis can not only improve survival rates, but it reduces the physical and psychological burden associated with advanced diagnosis and the disease spreading.

It is equally important, however, 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 should still happen. I repeat the petitioners’ call for early diagnosis. It is incredibly important.

My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36. She has been through chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, and I am pleased to say that she is on the mend, but that is another example of someone being diagnosed before the age of 40. If there is an historical family association with breast cancer, those under 40 should have the opportunity for early diagnosis. I agree with the petitioners that having a repeat opportunity of screening for annual check ups rather than every three years is important.

Access to screening is not just about age; it is about ensuring that those who are eligible for screening are aware of it and choose to take part. I have major concerns about the lack of uptake across certain groups. There is 81% uptake for breast cancer screening in the least deprived areas, compared with 56% in the most deprived areas. I know that the Minister cares deeply about the issue and I commend her for her work on it; the cause is close to her heart. I would be keen to understand from her how the Government are looking to tackle that discrepancy. I would also like to understand whether there is a plan to roll out an annual screening programme rather than just a three yearly one.

Ultimately, I know that all hon. Members participating in the debate share the objectives of reducing deaths from breast cancer and ensuring that women receive the best possible care, but they cannot be achieved without a fully funded long term workforce plan, alongside a clear, funded milestone to show how and when patients will see improvement.

I put on record my thanks to the volunteers, campaigners and professionals, including the mobile cancer screening units that operate in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale hospital team, for their incredible and tireless work to help and support patients. I would like to understand whether the petition’s aims are part of the Government’s ambitions under their 10-year health plan. This poignant petition asks the Government for the right things, and, given the amount of correspondence I have received from petitioners and residents across my constituency, it has my backing.

You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Vickers, that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the debate and engaged with the petitioners.

The UK’s breast screening programme is one of the greatest successes of our NHS. In Scotland, around 130 lives are saved each year through screening alone. The programme provides critical early diagnoses, improving treatment options and patient outcomes. Even in the worst cases, early diagnosis can give women precious extra time with their family and friends. However, the petition asks whether the current programme is enough. The screening used for those between the ages of 50 and 71 does not account for the fact that one in six people diagnosed with breast cancer each year are below the age of 50. Many more are diagnosed later, and tragically, diagnoses often come too late.

Studies from the USA show that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer when they are under 40 are 40% more likely to die from their cancer, and in the UK, breast cancer is the leading killer of women between the ages of 29 and 40. Worse still, the charity CoppaFeel! tells us that when women present to a healthcare professional with breast cancer symptoms, they are “routinely dismissed”—no doubt as menopausal, as often happens to women—creating missed opportunities for treatment. Sadly, those missed opportunities will only increase with the rate of breast cancer in young women, which, as we have heard, is already increasing. Although rates of breast cancer are increasing in all age groups, the incidence rates in younger women are growing faster than the rates in older women. Those facts should lead us to ask whether it is time to reconsider our current approach to screening.

I recognise that the petition’s proposal to transition to annual screening and to lower the screening age could present significant challenges for the NHS. Annual testing would require significant additional resources and patient buy in, and younger women’s breasts are often denser and therefore harder to scan, which throws up more anxiety inducing false positives. However, those challenges should not discourage us from doing more to support these women. Innovations such as the seven minute risk assessments proposed by CoppaFeel! could help us to improve and expand targeted screening to younger women with a predisposition to breast cancer, and increased resources and publicity will drive up uptake among all women.

To close, I want to recognise the work of CoppaFeel! and Asda, as well as the House of Hope in my constituency. The report CoppaFeel! published on the impact of a breast cancer diagnosis on younger patients has informed many hon. Members in this debate, and I pay tribute to its partnership with Asda, in their Tickled Pink campaign. In Edinburgh South West last year, Asda Chesser donated £2,700 to the House of Hope in Gorgie. The House of Hope is Scotland’s first bespoke support centre for those living with cancer. It provides care rather than treatment, and supports women and their families. The centre provides life enhancing support every day, and the impact it has had in just its first year of operation cannot be understated.

The House of Hope would not be what it is without the commitment of its founder, Lisa Fleming, who, since her diagnosis at age 33, has been a tireless advocate for the cancer community. I am proud to call her my constituent. This morning, she and her mother—both are formidable—were on my Facebook page, trying to influence this debate. When I met her mother a week or two ago, I was reminded that when a young woman gets breast cancer, her loved ones, including her children and parents, are affected by it. That wider economic impact should be taken into account in our decision making.

It is through work like Lisa’s and, I hope, a renewed commitment from the Minister to improve our screening processes that we can continue to take steps against this terrible disease. I feel obliged to put a question to the Minister, and I hope she will promise me this. The next time she visits Edinburgh, will she stop her ministerial limousine at the House of Hope and pay Lisa a visit?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for presenting this important debate and the Minister for attending. I congratulate Gemma Reeves on organising this well supported petition and her campaigning on this very important issue. Being diagnosed with breast cancer is a 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 60,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and one in seven women will receive such a diagnosis during their lifetime. Early diagnosis is crucial. Detecting breast cancer sooner gives people the best chance of successful treatment and ultimately saves 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 that spread still causes issues for me today, 18 years later. 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 1 survive for at least five years compared with around 25% diagnosed at stage 4. That is why breast screening is so important.

The Marmot review estimated that the current screening programme prevents around 1,300 deaths every year, yet uptake remains too low, particularly in England, where rates lag behind 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. 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 need to work on ideas to improve access to screening, particularly where uptake is lowest. Simple measures such as follow up invitations, culturally 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?

Improving uptake alone, though, is not enough. Serious workforce shortages and outdated equipment continue to delay diagnosis and treatment. Too much diagnostic equipment is ageing 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 a debate in Westminster Hall last year. Although 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 is what is required to tackle the backlog and ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for a 10-year capital investment programme so that every cancer patient can benefit from faster, more accurate diagnostics and treatment.

What further plans do the Government have to invest in both the workforce and the equipment needed to improve breast cancer outcomes? We know that breast cancer screening works and that 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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I also thank all those who signed the petition and who have campaigned to raise awareness of this issue.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the UK. While there may be a lot of talk of statistics today, the impact of breast cancer is not a number on a chart or in a table; it is real life, and it is heartbreaking. It is a mother, daughter, sister, friend or colleague—almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know that the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment, and screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. As we have heard, the 2012 Marmot review found that our screening programmes prevent 1,300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I understand where the petitioners are coming from. Even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many. That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

The stories of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Louis, Josh, Alfie and Zac and wife of Richard, and Anne Wise, mum of Louis and Lauren, have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and had reached remission at least once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. I send love to their families—especially to Anne’s, because it is her funeral on Saturday. Sadly, Laura and Anne are not alone. More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett. Her breast cancer also reached her before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and explain why so many people are asking what more can be done.

That is why we should follow the science. As new evidence emerges, technology improves and we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure that it delivers the very best benefits to our patients. Alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already have. In 2025, only 70% of Portsmouth women aged 53 to 70 had attended a breast screening in the last 36 months. That is 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.

Improving the uptake of screening among those already eligible must be an absolute priority, so I would like to ask the Minister how we are identifying barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know that levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance. 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 people live or what they earn does not determine their chance of cancer diagnosis. Can the Minister say more about that?

Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, the NHS has not met its cancer target since 2014. England’s cancer survival rates have slipped behind those of many comparable countries. That is not good enough. It is 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, which could alienate even more people and stop them taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost.

Labour has set out ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment, which are expected to save more 320,000 lives over the plan’s lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnostic technology mean that we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes by shifting more healthcare into our communities and neighbourhoods. We can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, whether through health hubs on the high street or having opening hours at weekends, in the early morning or evening, which would widen access. I would welcome working with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise attendance from 70% to 100%.

This debate is not about choosing between improving today’s screening programme and preparing for tomorrow —we must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners, and be prepared to strengthen and adapt programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman entitled to screening because of age, family history or symptoms is encouraged and supported to attend. The screening programme works only if people use it. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared devastating news.

If we continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports it and ensure that more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare many more families the heartbreak of Laura’s, Anne’s and Fiona’s.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this debate.

Gemma Reeves is a breast cancer nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, my local hospital in Margate. She started a petition that I noticed on my Instagram feed a few months ago, which calls on the NHS to establish annual mammograms for 40-year old women. I noticed that it was getting a lot of traction on my feed and that a lot of people I knew were signing up to it. I explored it more and wanted to understand where the policy would end up, but then—my colleagues will recognise this—it became another one of those campaigns I said I would do.

One day, however, I found that Gemma was up here in Westminster with her son, Mason, and I came to meet her in Central Lobby. She told me what she had seen as a breast cancer care nurse in the hospital in Margate, during the pandemic and since: an increase in the number of women under 50 presenting with breast cancer. What she saw corroborates research from CoppaFeel! showing that breast cancer in young women is on the rise. She became increasingly concerned that the people she was caring for could have had screening that might have meant that, when they finally presented at hospital, their cancer was not so advanced. More than half of all breast cancer cases in the UK occur in people outside the national screening age—one in six are under 50.

From having those conversations with Gemma, and since with the Minister, I know that many challenges come with tackling breast cancer in women under 50. We need to work out the best way of tackling breast cancer in younger women. I am delighted that the Minister met me, Gemma and her friends, who were previously her patients. They have become not just her friends but her co campaigners, because they have experienced getting breast cancer under 50 and also wish that there had been some kind of screening to identify their cancer earlier.

We and many people contributing to this debate know that screening is currently designed for older women; mammograms are designed for women over 50. Therefore, if we are looking for a way of screening young women, we may need to think about and explore different kinds of technologies, from MRIs to ultrasound.

We also need to avoid false positives, as many of my colleagues have referred to. More women could end up fearing that they have breast cancer than actually have it if we introduce screening that produces false positives. We also need to recognise that, for many people, having an early test or check in that includes things such as family history would enable them and their medical carers to spot the risks they are exposed to and decide whether they should go for early screening.

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the status quo is not acceptable, because it is not built for young people. It is also clear that the evidence on the occurrence of breast cancer in under-50s is out of date; the most recent evidence is from 2018. Therefore, I am absolutely delighted that Gemma has been able to come forward and lead this campaign, gathering so many signatures to her petition from across the country, particularly in east Kent. I hope that the Minister will take seriously her request not only to publish the evidence, but to act on it, and to find new ways of making sure that women younger than the current screening age of 50 are able to access screening to get their breast cancer spotted early.

One of our big missions in our mandate from the election was to tackle healthcare via prevention. Around 30% of breast cancers could be prevented through exercise, diet and alcohol control. Additionally, the earlier women are screened, the more likely it is that we can prevent illness and death. That is why I have supported Gemma in this campaign. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to exploring further ways of making sure that young women can be confident that breast screenings will spot cancer early.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate and setting out the argument so clearly. I welcome the petition upon which the debate is predicated, and I recognise the calls from the petitioners, including the 141 signatories from Mid Cheshire.

Any measures that can increase breast cancer diagnosis rates, improve treatment options, enhance survival and, ultimately, save lives must be considered carefully. 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 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 and sought answers, and was assured that she remained on a waiting list—but the 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 in 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 it.

Again, delays followed—delays that no patient in such a fragile situation should ever endure. Nevertheless, 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 for us to ensure 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 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 programmes, ensuring resilience in times of crisis and delivering timely care for every patient. Let this be the legacy of Sarah and Dave: a legacy not 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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important petition debate on NHS breast screening.

It is hard to follow the passionate speech by the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), but this is important, because there are about 60,000 new cases of breast cancer in the UK each year. Breast cancer represents 15% of all new cancer cases and 30% of all new female cancer cases. It is the most common type of cancer among women: a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer every nine minutes and there are approximately 11,200 deaths due to breast cancer each year in the UK. The human costs behind those statistics cannot be overstated. In the short span of today’s debate, 10 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and two will tragically lose their lives to the disease.

Over recent decades, we have made huge strides in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. It is remarkable that approximately 76% of women now survive for 10 years or more following their diagnosis. But as with any cancer, diagnosing breast cancer early remains vital and saves lives. Breast screening remains the most effective way to detect cancer at an early stage, which is also when treatment is most likely to succeed. More than 95% of people diagnosed at stage 1 will survive for at least five years, compared with about 25% diagnosed at stage 4.

The Marmot review estimated that the current screening programme prevents about 1,300 deaths a year. In 2024-25, about 2.75 million women aged 50 to 71 were invited to be screened—a 10% increase on the previous year—and 2.15 million of them took the offer up. Nearly 20,000 women had breast cancer detected through that screening, but as those figures highlight, around 600,000 women did not take up the essential offer of breast cancer screening.

Recent screening data reveals an alarming trend of women not attending their first screening appointment. The impact of not taking up the screening offer only compounds the issue. Women who do not attend their first breast cancer screening appointment are much less likely to take up subsequent screening invitations. In 2024-25, only 20.9% of women in England who had never previously taken up screening invitations attended, compared with the 89.1% uptake among women who had been screened in the last five years. Since the creation of the modern NHS breast screening programme, uptake for first time screening invitations has never reached 70%.

Had the screening uptake level reached the NHS achievable standard target of 80% in 2024-25, over a quarter of a million more women would have undergone routine screening, and that would have resulted in an estimated additional 2,228 cases of breast cancer being found. The scale of the missed opportunity to catch more cancer early is unacceptable, and women and their loved ones are paying the tragic price. I urge anyone who is eligible to take up the offer of breast cancer screening.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that so much more must be done to ensure that every eligible woman attends screening when invited, particularly in England, where uptake is lagging behind the devolved nations and pre pandemic levels. There are many reasons why women do not attend their breast cancer screening appointments, including misconceptions about the screening process and breast cancer, the fear of receiving a diagnosis, and 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.

What actions are the Labour Government taking to improve screening uptake nationally, particularly among disenfranchised women? What steps are the Government actively taking to support pop up screening initiatives in community settings, and what is being done to ensure that those vital health services are meeting people where they are and at times that work for them? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that women are able to receive the best screening test for their individual health needs? That might include, for example, providing women with an increased risk of breast cancer with an ultrasound if they are unable to have an MRI or they have dense breasts. That is particularly relevant to younger women with an increased risk, for whom an ultrasound will provide greater accuracy in screening their dense breast tissue. Mammograms can struggle to identify cancer in dense breasts, as cancers and dense tissue present in exactly the same way on imaging.

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 10-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 at 8.5 and Italy at 6.9.

Radiotherapy lacks clear accountability. While responsibility for commissioning it sits with integrated care boards, 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% receive it in England. In some areas, the figure is as low as 22%. Radiotherapy also has the longest waiting times. Only around four in 10 patients—and, in some areas of the country, as few as two in 10— receive radiotherapy on time.

Whether it is radiotherapy deserts or the mammogram machine glitch that left 7,000 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. That is unacceptable and we must take action now. To address that, the Liberal Democrats are campaigning for a 10-year capital investment programme, under which all patients, including women with breast cancer, would benefit from easier access to newer, quicker and more accurate machines.

Alongside screening, speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing breast cancer survival rates. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients would be able to start treatment within 62 days of urgent referral. We would 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, 3.4 million people in England live further away from a radiotherapy centre than the NHS target of 45 minutes.

Taking those steps now is vital. We need to prepare our local cancer services for the future, as demand is increasing. Cancer cases are expected to rise by about 30% by 2040, and the new national screening programme is likely to identify more patients who need curative radiotherapy treatment. Without urgent action, the existing pressures on radiotherapy services will only worsen. We would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient had a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

The future looks bright, with early pilots and trials using AI to analyse mammograms showing promising signs of potential improvement in both the speed and the accuracy of screening, but we must support our life sciences sector much more 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.

I want to reflect on the 10 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 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 perspectives raised in the debate.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate Gemma Reeves on bringing forward the petition and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on introducing this important debate. It has been very moving to hear so many stories from hon. Members on both sides of the House reminding us of the human cost of this disease.

Breast cancer is very common, as other Members have said, affecting one in seven women during their lifetime. The Minister and I have had a number of debates in this Chamber about various diseases and forms of cancer. One of the core principles we often discuss is that early diagnosis saves lives. Cancer Research UK says that 85% of women who live more than 10 years after a diagnosis of breast cancer were diagnosed at stage 1 or 2 —the earlier stages to be diagnosed at. It was for that reason, and on that principle, that the UK introduced the world’s first national screening programme for breast cancer in 1988. Since then, much has changed. In particular, survival rates have improved dramatically. Now, 76.6% live more than 10 years; the figure was very much lower in the 1980s.

There are still some issues with screening, however, as hon. Members have said. One is that women with denser breasts find it more difficult to locate lumps, and when doing mammograms, it can be more difficult to locate cancerous tumours. Will the Minister update the House on what work has been done on using ultrasounds and MRIs to identify tumours in women with denser breasts? I understand that the National Screening Council is looking at this subject in detail. When is it due to report its findings to the Minister, and when does she intends to bring them to the House?

The effectiveness of treatment has improved, but the risk of overtreatment is higher in younger women. The incidence of the disease is increasing in younger and older women: the Cancer Research UK website says that the rate has increased by 12% in women aged between 25 and 49, and by 72% in women aged between 65 and 69. Should younger women therefore now receive screening, and should older women receive more frequent screening?

The cancer plan, which the Government published earlier this year, said that they will engage with manufacturers to look at mammograms that are more accessible to those with a physical disability, who at the moment struggle to receive their screening. Will the Minister update the House on the engagement she has had with manufacturers and on the progress that has been made?

The age trial in Oxford is looking at women aged between 47 and 49, and between 71 and 73—the ages just outside the current range of screening. I understand that early results are due in December 2026. Has the Minister had any indication of the results yet, and is she preparing for any results that come forward? Has she engaged with the people running that important trial?

Community diagnostic centres, which were initiated by the previous Government and rolled out across the country, provide screening close to people’s homes, which makes it much easier for them to attend. Will the Minister update us on how she is improving the number of CDCs available across the country?

The Government have talked about the shifts that they want to produce in healthcare, one of which is about prevention. According to the Cancer Research UK website, 23% of breast cancer cases are preventable. Will the Minister update us on what she is doing to reduce the number of preventable cases of breast cancer?

Many hon. Members have talked about attendance at screening tests. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke about some of the reasons why women do not attend screening. It is important that we understand why about a third of women do not attend. It is only by understanding what puts women off and makes them not attend that we can improve the services so that more women do attend. It was sobering to hear how many lives could be saved if more women attended screening. How are we making screening more accessible for women? Are we ensuring that women know that it is happening and that they need it? Do they understand the benefits of it? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.

Another shift relates to the digital NHS. AI provides us with a number of ways to improve breast cancer screening and treatment. It could help us to understand who should be invited to screening and how often, and it can help when looking at mammogram scans. A few years ago, the Health and Social Care Committee visited Stanford in California and looked at the AI there. We saw a study comparing two radiology consultants looking at a scan, two AI computers using two different programmes, and a person and an AI computer. It discovered that the person and the AI computer were the most accurate. That can help to reduce the number of people we need in the workforce and, importantly, can improve the accuracy of screening results.

That brings me on to the workforce. We know that the Government have a workforce plan, although its publication has been much delayed. We have been told repeatedly over the past few weeks that it has moved to “imminent” status—imminent being quicker than soon—but we do not know when imminent is. Does that mean it will be published before the summer, or do we need to wait for the new Prime Minister to make a decision? It would be helpful to know that from the Minister. As we heard about radiology and radiotherapy, the workforce is incredibly important. We need a thorough plan, otherwise we will have recommendations from the NSC for screening and no people to provide that care.

I also wanted to raise with the Minister the Lobular Moon Shot Project. We have discussed before the importance of research into lobular breast cancer, which is more difficult to diagnose and treat. The last time we spoke about this, the Minister was looking at research projects that the Government could fund to identify new treatments and ways of screening for this disease, hopefully saving lives. Will she update us on how she is getting along with that?

Much of my time at the moment is spent with another Health Minister—the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—in Committee Room 9, debating the Health Bill. That is where I will be tomorrow. The Bill relates to one of the important organisational factors in screening. At the moment, screening programmes are generally organised by NHS England, which is being abolished. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care wrote a letter in March saying that commissioning responsibility will be directly delegated to ICBs, in the same way that they are currently delegated to NHSE, by the Secretary of State. Does the Minister expect that to cause any disruption to the breast screening programme?

Integrated care boards have had their budgets cut by 50% just as they are asked to take on this work. We know that they are merging and reorganising in cells. The Government’s plans are that they should follow the mayoral authority boundaries, but the mergers that have taken place so far do not follow those boundaries. There is therefore a risk that we will need reorganisation all over again. Does the Minister think that that will have an effect on the screening programme? If so, what is she doing to mitigate that effect to ensure that as many people as possible get the very best screening and we can reduce the number of people suffering from the disease?

The screening programme offers a real opportunity to diagnose, treat early and save lives, but it needs to be delivered well. We need to ensure that the right people get the right type of screening at the right age, and at the right frequency. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

How long do I have to speak? I have a lot to get through; let us see if I can make it.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), her constituent Gemma, Gemma’s son, Mason, and the other ladies in the Public Gallery today for their campaigning on this petition and for gathering so many signatures that we can debate it. I pay tribute to them and thank them for joining us. I was very pleased to meet them last month to discuss this important issue.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton). I commend her constant courage in speaking so openly about her experience of breast cancer. I send my very best wishes to her throughout her ongoing treatment.

Behind all the figures we are discussing today, there are women, men, families and communities who have been affected by breast cancer in the most difficult and personal of ways. I pay tribute to NHS staff in breast screening services across the country, who work tirelessly to ensure that women and men are offered this important preventive measure.

Last year, our highly effective NHS breast screening programme screened nearly 2 million women. Each year, the programme is estimated to save 1,300 lives, but we must be honest about the scale of the challenge. Around 11,500 women still die from breast cancer each year. Many thousands more go through treatment, with all the fear, uncertainty and disruption that brings for them and the people who love them. That is why I am clear: we need to do more and will do more.

The national cancer plan published earlier this year sets out how we will improve outcomes for breast cancer patients. We will speed up diagnosis and treatment, ensure that patients can access the latest treatments and technology and, ultimately, drive up this country’s cancer survival rates. The plan commits to rolling out breast pain clinics nationally by the end of the year. It also builds on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening units. Cancer alliances will receive funding to work proactively with local communities and providers so that more cancers are diagnosed earlier.

I will now speak to points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire)—there might have been others, but those are the names I scribbled down. They raised issues about serving ethnic minority communities as well as underserved, deprived communities. Building on successful initiatives such as mobile breast screening, as I mentioned, cancer alliances will receive funding and work proactively with local communities and providers to improve early diagnosis rates. They will focus on increasing people’s awareness of symptoms, and support primary care to spot the signs of cancer early. The work will also include reducing the gap in screening uptake between the most and least deprived areas. There will be particular efforts to reach ethnic minority communities and underserved groups because no one should be left behind.

The NHS also runs its “Help Us, Help You” campaign in England, which helps to increase knowledge of breast cancer symptoms and address barriers to acting on them, as well as encouraging people to come forward to see their GP as soon as possible. I understand why many people ask whether screening should begin at a younger age. It is a deeply human question that is often asked by people who have seen the impact of breast cancer at first hand. We are looking carefully at the evidence, but the picture is complex. I will come on to everything about that that has been raised.

As we have heard, younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, which can make mammography less effective. Screening can save lives, but it can also cause harm through false positives, unnecessary tests, avoidable anxiety and overdiagnosis. That is why decisions must be made carefully and on the basis of robust evidence. My hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Broxtowe and for Edinburgh South West, as well as other colleagues, no doubt, raised that issue. As we know, some women will have denser breast tissue and unfortunately that makes mammography less effective because a potential cancer can be harder to spot. We are working to find the best solutions to that problem.

A study called BRAID—breast screening risk adaptive imaging for density—is looking into whether supplementary imaging techniques like MRI or ultrasound could be used for women with dense breast tissue. The independent UK National Screening Committee is in contact with the researchers and reviews the evidence as it becomes available. Ministers in the Department and across the Government will consider its recommendations as soon as they are made.

A number of colleagues asked about the AgeX breast screening trial, which is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken. It will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of screening in age groups above and below the current screening age. The trial has been looking at the effectiveness of offering some women one extra screening between the ages of 47 and 49 and one between the ages of 71 and 73. AgeX is the biggest trial of its kind ever to be undertaken and will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness, benefits and harms of screening in those age groups. The UK NSC will review the publication of the AgeX extension trial when it reports. The trial began in 2009, and results are expected in 2027, something the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about.

Screening trials require extended follow up periods to generate robust evidence on whether screening reduces disease or death, while also assessing any potential long term harms. The UK NSC continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, NHS England has produced a suite of public facing information resources, communicating that women, especially those aged 71 or over, can have screening every three years if they so wish.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also asked why we do not screen annually. The three year intervals of the national breast screening programme are based on a successful Swedish trial. The frequency of screening balances the risk of harm from over diagnosis with the benefits of early detection, and women at high risk of breast cancer are often called more frequently.

I want a bit of clarity from the Minister, because the petitioners are calling on the Government to lower the age at which women are first called for breast cancer screening to 40 and to roll out screening on an annual basis rather than every three years. I know that they are not intending to do that, because we have seen the written response from them in advance of the debate, but what further evidence do the Government need to be able to achieve what the petitioners are asking?

As I said, the AgeX trial has been running since 2009 and has been researching the efficacy of providing breast cancer screening to people above and below the current screening age. It is due to report next year, so hopefully it will provide the further evidence that is necessary. It is already in train. These decisions are not taken lightly, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), asked me about AI. We are supporting the early detection using information technology in health, or EDITH, trial. It will test new AI technologies that could enable one specialist—rather than two, as is currently required—to complete a mammogram screening process, increasing capacity in the screening system while maintaining patient safety.

We are entering a new era in science and technology. Advances in data, genomics and predictive analytics will allow the NHS to deliver care that is more personalised, more proactive and better matched to each person’s individual risk. New tools, such as liquid biopsies and other non invasive tests, may help us to detect cancer much earlier, and often before symptoms appear. The NHS is preparing to seize those breakthroughs so that patients can benefit from the full power of modern innovation.

The national cancer plan has identified priority areas to accelerate access to new technologies, including artificial intelligence assisted interpretation of pathology images for suspected breast cancer diagnosis. We will continue to horizon scan for better methods of screening and to build the evidence base for any future changes. Our ambition is clear—to save more lives, to diagnose cancer earlier and to do so in a way that brings more benefit than harm.

I am interested in the possibilities of AI helping with detection and speeding up that process, freeing up resources to be directed into earlier detection by focusing on screening for younger women. If we are to harness the potential of AI, surely the first thing that we should do is to redirect the resources that are saved into ensuring that we can save more lives, potentially those of the young women who have campaigned so strongly on this petition.

Yes; saving more lives and freeing up resources is exactly what we should be doing. In relation to the AgeX trial evidence and other evidence that is being looked at, that will be happening within the next year. Hopefully for my hon. Friend and others here today and the campaigners, the evidence will be looked at and, if it is strong enough, things will change.

Colleagues raised a number of other issues that I want to touch on. The hon. Member for Wokingham, chair of the all party parliamentary group on breast cancer, always reminds us that it is not just women who are affected. Sixty thousand people a year are diagnosed with breast cancer, and a small proportion of that number will be men. It is always important that we remember that, and he is doing an amazing job as chair of the all party group. If I am here and the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, is here, the hon. Gentleman is often here as well—we have become a regular trio in these debates on a Monday.

I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), who gave a very emotional speech about his constituent Sarah and her husband David. What happened was so tragic. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that, and I want him to know that all of us here having heard it already means that it was not in vain. He said that he wanted to make sure that their story had been heard—how tragic it was, its consequences, and how long lasting the effect of this awful disease is, not just on those who suffer, but on the wider family.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North asked me about cancer waiting times more broadly, and I cannot let this moment go without stressing that cancer patients are now getting diagnosed in the shortest time on record. I am pleased to report that.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the very important issue of women with physical disabilities. We have spoken about this before. The NHS has an obligation to make appropriate accommodations for people with disabilities, as I know she is aware. Unfortunately, however, some mammography machines are not a good design for people in wheelchairs and those who cannot support their own torso. For women for whom mammography is not an option, a physical exam can still be offered; and where a GP is concerned about the findings following a physical exam, the woman can be referred for further diagnostic tests. The NHS is talking with manufacturers about amending the design of mammography machines, and NHS England is considering whether alternative testing tools could be used instead of a mammogram in those specific circumstances.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the workforce plan is still imminent; I have nothing further to add on that. She mentioned lobular breast cancer and the Moon Shot project. As she is aware, in April Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, and I, alongside NIHR and MRC representatives, met the Lobular Moon Shot Project team to discuss how best to progress research in this area.

Following that meeting, a scientific roundtable on lobular breast cancer was organised earlier this month. Lord Vallance hosted the roundtable, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, executive chair of the MRC, chaired a discussion considering the challenges and opportunities for progress in invasive lobular breast cancer research. The NIHR is actively encouraging high quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025. We hope that the team will make an application for that.

I cannot finish my speech without stating one message as clearly as I can. If hon. Members or their constituents are, at any time, worried about breast cancer symptoms, such as a lump, an area of thickened tissue in the breast or any change in how their breasts look or feel, no matter what age they may be, I say this: “Please do not wait to be offered screening. Please contact your GP at any stage.” Coming forward early, as we know—and as Gemma and her friends know more than most—can make all the difference. I want to make sure that message goes out loud and clear.

It has been a privilege to open and close such an important debate. We have heard from many Members and the Minister about how important early diagnosis and treatment are for breast cancer, and how key it is that we tackle this issue quickly and effectively. We have also heard about health inequalities and deprivation, and how they can impact the take up of screening opportunities. We must do more to address that.

The NHS 10-year plan has committed to diagnosing 75% of cancers early by 2028, and the national cancer plan has a 75% five year survival target for all cancers. This is an area that is very important to so many people across the UK, and we must do all we can as a Government to improve recovery and survival from cancer, particularly the most common type of cancer in women.

I would like to finish by thanking the petitioner, Gemma Reeves, again and congratulating her on gathering over 106,000 signatures, which is a great achievement.

I would also like to thank Lily Parsey, Sophie Conway and Lily Ewin from CoppaFeel!, Nele Gewert and Hannah Maybour from Breast Cancer Now, Cristina Visintin and Ros Given Wilson from the UK National Screening Committee, and Professor Sacha Howell and Sarah Hindmarch from Manchester University for meeting me and my team before this debate.

Finally, as always, I thank the staff of the Petitions Committee, who work tirelessly every week to make sure that these debates go ahead in such a smooth and effective way.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e petition 742179 relating to NHS breast screening.

Sitting adjourned.