Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening to the Minister’s comments about capacity. I appreciate that she may not have the specific details in front of her, but I would be interested to know whether Cambridgeshire sits within one of the undercapacity regions, and whether that is why so many incinerators are being built in those constituencies. My other point—I appreciate this is slightly tangential—is that residents of the village of Pidley in my constituency will find themselves equidistant from two incinerators if both are approved. Is there a minimum distance that a village can expect to be from an incinerator? If so, what is it?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I commend the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate. Huntingdon could be impacted by two waste incinerators just four miles apart from each other, and I rise to express my opposition to them once again. Warboys incinerator was first proposed in 2022, put on hold in 2023, and then revamped in October 2023. The plant would operate 24/7 and process 87,500 tonnes of waste per year. I commend Councillor Ross Martin in my constituency for campaigning against it. There are many concerns about the significant impact on local residents in Warboys and nearby Pidley of not just the Warboys site but of being slap-bang in the middle of two sites of this scale. Just four miles away, another plant in Huntingdon has already been approved, known as Envar. I have met the local campaign group POWI—People Opposing Woodhurst Incinerator—and have heard their opposition to the plans that would blight our land with a 26-metre-high chimney, create even more congestion and raise concerns about health risks. There are also concerns about the increase in vehicles, particularly given the proximity to the dangerous Wheatsheaf junction, which still has not been repaired. The incinerator was originally rejected by both Conservative and Labour councillors—the Lib Dem councillors, who did not live locally, voted in favour of it. The rejection was overturned on appeal, and the Labour Government then approved it. On 30 July last year I was concerned that, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s response at the Dispatch Box to my question about her approving the site despite the council rejecting the initial application, she claimed not to have dealt with that decision, deferring responsibility to the Minister of State, and ignored my request for her to meet the people impacted by the decision. That request was further ignored in a letter from a Minister on 13 September. The Government have updated the national policy statement in order to meet their ideological aims, and I feel strongly that the Government are doing their utmost to silence the opposition of people in Huntingdon to railroad through their plans. Residents across Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Pidley, Somersham, Colne, Bluntisham, Needingworth and the market town of St Ives will likely be impacted by Envar, with residents of Pidley and Warboys being impacted by both the Envar and Warboys incinerators. St Ives is the second largest town in my constituency, and the incinerator is right on its doorstep. The Deputy Prime Minister did not consider the scheme to be in accordance with the Huntingdonshire local plan, and my constituents need clarification on precisely why the decision was deemed beneficial above and beyond the local plan. Local job creation was given significant weighting in the decision-making process, even though only 22 additional jobs would be created at the site. My constituents want to know the reason for that weighting, given that so few jobs would be created. The NHS 2023 clinical waste strategy outlines the need to reduce waste incineration, and that the development of in-house capability should be viewed as a strategic priority, so I am at a loss to see how the approval of a privately owned healthcare waste recovery facility can be justified. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. I asked the Government the current medical waste incineration capacity in the county, and they did not know, so I do not see how they can know that the additional capacity is required. I want to hear why the Government seem to be rewriting rules to fit their aims without doing my constituents the courtesy of listening to them. I want clarity about why things such as the creation of just over 20 jobs outweigh the raft of concerns from the affected local residents. Finally, I extend my invitation, for the third time, to the Deputy Prime Minister or any of the ministerial team: I want them to sit down and explain the process to the people of Pidley, Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Somersham, Colne, Bluntisham, Needingworth and St Ives, and explain why the Government have thus far ignored their voices and those of their elected councillors.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  Rugby union is sadly a sport on its knees in this country, propped up solely by the six nations, with top-flight clubs going to the wall despite a ringfenced premiership cartel. Mismanagement of the game has become endemic. The Rugby Football Union sustained losses of £38 million last year, yet still found the cash to provide a total remuneration package of £1.1 million to Bill Sweeney, who has presided over the current shambles. Although he survived a vote of no confidence at a special general meeting of the RFU at Twickenham last week, forced by the Whole Game Union, the RFU is desperately trying to restore credibility with the grassroots game. What oversight are the Government providing of the management of rugby union in England, the implementation of the forthcoming modernisation programme and the six-point plan for community rugby? What support can they give to beleaguered grassroots clubs that are the lifeblood of the game and create our future internationals—

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  16. What steps is she taking to support grassroots sports venues.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Grassroots Sports · Hansard source

  More

  Players like George Furbank, who started his career at Huntingdon Stags?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday 25 March at Windsor castle, His Majesty the King honoured George Kelly, making him an MBE in recognition of his dedication to the Royal British Legion. A former president of the Royal British Legion’s St Ives branch, George joined the legion in 1982 after an incredible 42-year career as an RAF navigator. He was shot down during the second world war aged 21, and went on to take part in the Berlin airlift and the Suez crisis. At a sprightly 101 years old, he is known locally as the poppy man. Can I ask the Leader of the House and all Members to join me in congratulating George on his achievement and his incredible life of dedication and service, and will she make time in the parliamentary schedule to give thanks to all those who dedicate their lives to volunteering for charity organisations and to the help of others?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  For all the carefully choreographed bonhomie in the Oval Office last November, the Prime Minister failed to secure a US military backstop for his coalition. Despite No. 10 briefing a narrative about productive discussions at the weekend, the Prime Minister has admitted to business leaders that there will be an economic impact from the decisions that the US has taken. On Times Radio this morning, the Business Secretary said that he would roll up his sleeves to try to remove the impact on businesses entirely. That is a bold claim, given the circumstances and the impact that the Chancellor’s Budget is already having. What timeframe does he envisage for an economic deal with the US? What will he be doing until 1 May while waiting for the views of UK shareholders?

• 2 Apr 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him: “The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.” Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I reiterate my opposition to the measures that this Government wish to impose. The slew of nationally significant infrastructure projects approved by this Government since July is the vanguard of many more. In Huntington, the proposed East Park solar farm is set to be bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres spanning 6 miles. Nearly 75% of the agricultural land involved is graded as our best and most versatile land. Though the Energy Minister has previously stated to me that “no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land”, this Government’s track record and ideological zealotry on this point strongly indicates that there is no upper limit on the quantity of agricultural land they are willing to develop. Last week, during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she would protect our high-quality agricultural land. I would be interested to hear from the Government how exactly they plan to do that, given their track record of building on it. I regularly speak to constituents who feel voiceless and ignored. The Secretary of State has shown himself to prioritise ideology over listening to valid concerns, let alone pragmatic details. The Government are willing to move the goalposts to reach their aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation, and no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills or to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities. Clause 5 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill even removes the requirement to consult category 3 people who can make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Instead, they will be informed that their land will be taken only at the acceptance stage. My online petition of residents in the villages surrounding the solar farm received more than 1,100 signatures. That was the only time those residents feel they have been able to make their voices heard. I urge the Government to listen to these people and thousands of others like them across our rural heartlands. The Government take pride in announcing with this statutory instrument that the solar NSIP threshold has been raised from 50 MW to 100 MW. The average megawatt output of a solar farm application in 2010 was 3.8 MW. The average solar NSIP application approved since this Government came to power is 488 MW, to refer to my previous question to the Minister. By keeping the threshold artificially low, the Government open the door to huge numbers of solar farms becoming NSIP by the back door. I would welcome a review on setting that NSIP threshold at a much higher level, given the scale of current nationally significant infrastructure projects. I have previously asked the Minister about the quality of photovoltaic panels and the fact that they will create more and more energy going forwards. We must also look at where the panels will be sourced. The Energy Minister has previously confirmed to me that the Government are “determined to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains, including in the manufacture of solar panels”, yet they whipped Government Members against a Conservative motion that would have prevented Great British Energy from buying solar panels when there is evidence of modern slavery in the supply process. The Government are more interested in scoring political points than in taking the steps to eradicate forced labour. The Government have repeatedly demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over local wishes in pursuit of their ideological goals. With their manipulation of the system to force through tens of thousands of acres of solar panels, much of them on our best and most versatile agricultural land, and by making rolling changes to national policy statements while keeping the solar NSIP threshold artificially low, the Government show once again their contempt for our embattled rural communities.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  I will leave my decision until we have a vote on that Bill, but I will look at it in more detail.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is, like me, a Cambridgeshire MP. Cambridgeshire has already had Sunnica, one of the largest solar farms in the country at 2,400 acres, approved. We have another 1,900 acre project in my constituency, as she well knows, and others are in the planning process. Does she agree that Cambridgeshire residents should not have to bear the brunt of these projects? I know that she is a staunch advocate for the move towards solar, but would she, like me, stand up for her residents if someone was looking to build a nationally significant infrastructure project of that scale in her constituency?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The Government have a target of building 1.5 million—sorry, that was downgraded in the spring statement to 1.3 million—new homes. It would be sensible for them to implement some sort of legislation that would mean that those 1.3 million new homes had solar panels on their roofs. I urge the Minister to ask what assessment has been done on how much energy could be generated were we to do that at full scale instead of building solar farms on our best rural heartlands.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on this important matter. Two weeks ago, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) came to my constituency campaigning, and did not inform me that he was visiting. I would very much welcome it if you perhaps took this opportunity to remind him of the behaviour code, too.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. It is so important that those vital skills developed by armed forces personnel during their time in service are transitioned into the civilian workforce. I know there are many civilian employers that would welcome veterans for the skills they bring, their self-discipline and their self-starting motivation. When I transitioned from the armed forces, I had help from various organisations, and that wraparound care is very much needed. Latterly, the RBL has also campaigned on behalf of veterans, successfully campaigning for the waiver of indefinite leave to remain fees for Commonwealth veterans. I gently nudge the Minister on expanding the scope to include their dependants, which I know is on his to-do list. In closing, I thank all those who work tirelessly to keep the Royal British Legion in the forefront of our minds, commemorating those who have made the ultimate sacrifice via the poppy appeal, advocating for our veterans and being the glue that binds together much of our veterans’ community. Without them, being a veteran would be far more challenging.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this important debate, and for his work as president of the Hinckley branch of the Royal British Legion. I too am a member of the Royal British Legion and have enjoyed many visits to local branches, including my local Brampton branch’s monthly Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes break, but my constituency also hosts the Huntingdon, Sawtry, and Kimbolton district branches. Huntingdon is home to a higher proportion of veterans than most areas in the country, and therefore the work of the RBL is extremely valued—not just commemorating the service of those who have sacrificed their lives for this country, but the support it provides to our veterans every single day. Every year, I take part in the London poppy appeal, which sees over 1,000 uniformed personnel from the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force, along with an additional 1,000 veterans, volunteers and supporters, raise over £1 million for the vital work of the Legion. Last November, it was an honour to stand next to my old regimental colleagues from the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment and the Royal Yorkshire Regiment, selling poppies and reminiscing about our time served together, as well as those who did not return. As a veteran myself, I know only too well the support that is needed and the crucial role that the RBL plays. I know I speak on behalf of my fellow veterans, and indeed of those still serving, when I say this focus on our armed forces community makes us feel appreciated and valued. However, it is important to reiterate that the work of the RBL is not limited to just selling poppies. The RBL offers lifelong support to both serving and ex-serving personnel and their families, starting from day one of service and continuing after they leave. Its assistance includes expert advice, recovery, rehabilitation and help with transitioning to civilian life. Where it cannot provide direct support, its extensive network ensures that veterans are connected with someone who can, meaning that every veteran is cared for.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Under the Police Regulations 2003, officers in Hertfordshire receive an allowance of up to £3,000, and those in Bedfordshire receive £2,000. Officers in Cambridgeshire are not eligible for the south-east allowance, despite being in the same tri-force area. The Policing Minister has previously informed me that the Government will give careful consideration to representations regarding the south-east allowance. Will she take steps to award the south-east allowance to Cambridgeshire constabulary police officers?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has made much of the Government’s investment in defence and desire to make the country a defence industrial superpower. I am keen to pitch for a slice of the protected £400 million for UK defence innovation. Huntingdon is the home of our defence intelligence capability, the US air force’s joint intelligence operations centre Europe, and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre. There is huge investment in sites such as the Alconbury Weald enterprise campus and Brampton Cross, and the potential redevelopment of Ministry of Defence land around RAF Wyton. It is the perfect location for defence start-ups, and with the arrival of several already in flight, the US Government are investing north of £500 million in Huntingdon alone. Will she make a similar commitment to Huntingdon and include it in her list of defence sites?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the Minister’s curt responses suggest that she is struggling somewhat with her brief, but does she actually know how many gangs have been smashed? If she does not know, and on the basis of her previous answers to me I suspect that she does not, why does she not know, and if she does know, will she inform the House—unless, of course, the answer is that no gangs have yet been smashed?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Saturday 22 March, 11 Labour MPs campaigned in my constituency, the majority of whom neglected to inform me. I am well aware that Labour is desperate to hang on to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoralty. Having parted company with the current Labour mayor at the eleventh hour, after he was found guilty of breaching the code of conduct during his term, it has panic-selected the only candidate who could be found at short notice—someone who already lost the police and crime commissioner election last year—and is desperately pouring MPs into my constituency to campaign against Paul Bristow. As a matter of courtesy, I would have expected Members to notify me of their visit. While new Members could feign ignorance, a Secretary of State and a junior Minister should know better.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The aspect of the Bill I would like to focus on is the nationally significant infrastructure project reform. This Labour Government claim that their reforms will make “targeted and impactful interventions to the consenting system,” but that will come as scant consolation to the local residents on the receiving end of the projects being foisted upon them. Having fought for my constituents against a solar NSIP, I know how difficult it will be to navigate for the average person, and the Government appear determined to make it even harder The Government are moving the goalposts to reach their ideological aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation as a result—no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills, with the Government only assessing zonal pricing, and no firm commitment to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities. This Labour Government have already forced through six solar NSIPs since July, compared with just three under the previous Government. The largest of the three approved by the Conservatives was 1,200 acres; the smallest solar farm approved by this Government is 1,300 acres, while the largest, so far, is 2,800 acres. The current threshold for solar development to qualify as an NSIP is only 50 MW, which has been the case since 2008. While the Government have legislated to raise the existing solar threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW, it is still a laughably low bar. Point 2.10.17 of national policy statement EN-3 clearly states that “a solar farm requires between 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output.” Such a low threshold will potentially allow hundreds of acres of good-quality farmland to be brought into scope. Cambridgeshire is seen as a target-rich environment by the Government. We have already seen the Sunnica energy farm approved in the east of the county, and now East Park solar farm has been proposed in my constituency on an excessive scale—it is bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres and spanning six miles. Nearly 75% of the site is graded as best and most versatile land. In answer to a written question about how many consented nationally significant infrastructure projects use greater than 50% best and most versatile land. I was told by the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is in his place, that “no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land.” Last week, when I challenged the Secretary of State on the same point, quoting point 5.11.34 of the national policy statement—that he should “ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification”— he suggested that “the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues” —[ Official Report , 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 164.] But will they? The Government have pledged to achieve a target. They have moved the goalposts to make that target easier to achieve and stacked the deck in their favour at the expense of local residents, suggesting that achieving the goal “is going to require our NSIP system to be firing on all cylinders.” The Government will remove the requirement to consult category 3 people, who would be able to make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, while maintaining the requirement for notification at the acceptance stage. The first that residents will know about land being taken from them is after an application has already been accepted. The illusion of statutory consultation appears to be nothing more than lip service. For all the questions I have asked—written questions, oral questions—I have not once heard a response from the Government that the views of local people will be taken into account nor explaining how the highest-graded land will be protected from development. I note that in her opening speech, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Government would be protecting agricultural land, but gave no detail on that. I would be interested to hear what the Government are going to do. It is particularly telling that the forthcoming solar road map will not break cover until after the Bill has progressed. Yet again, it appears that this Government will do anything to achieve their plan for change without any thought to the consequences of said change. The Bill requires the national policy statements to be updated every five years, but those providing policy guidance on energy infrastructure were last published in January 2024. Although that should mean they will not be updated again until 2029, the Bill proposes that Parliament can make changes to the NPSs outside the rhythm of those updates. Given the clear desire of the Government to force through NSIPs wherever possible, my concern is that they are being given a window of opportunity to implement rolling tweaks in order to manipulate the NSIP process to better suit their own agenda.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. Areas that traditionally have not been plagued by such violence are increasingly finding it rippling out into their communities. It is no longer just in large cities and areas that we would traditionally associate with it; we are finding it slowly moving into the suburbs. We need to nip this in the bud if we can to prevent any more tragedies. A key question is: why are children now prepared to murder other children? It cannot be ignored that we see countless examples weekly—even daily—of a child being stabbed by another child. When did children develop a nihilistic worldview and a willingness to take the life of another child? In my previous career as an Army officer, I instructed new soldiers in phase one training, so I know how long it takes to train a teenager to be prepared to kill. How and why are some children developing that mindset all on their own? Fear is a huge driver of knife-carrying. The Ben Kinsella Trust’s “Keeping Young People Safe” report illustrates that it drives the normalisation of carrying a knife. In the report, two thirds of respondents to a survey of some 10,000 young people said that they harboured anxiety about knife crime. Shockingly, the survey shows that children as young as 10 or 11 years old are considering carrying a knife. Though the numbers are very low, that shows that the idea of carrying a knife is within the scope of children who have only just stopped believing in Father Christmas. Are children murdering other children solely out of fear? These children are not actually under threat—these are fights over little more than perceived slights—but somehow we have reached a stage of such frenzied paranoia among children of school age that they believe not only that they need to carry a knife, but that taking a life is somehow a reasonable, rational response to these situations. There is a sensible argument for access to therapy as a potential solution, but I appreciate that that is easy to suggest and unrealistic to facilitate and implement. I have gone on long enough; I want to give others an opportunity to speak. I hope to hear many important and interesting contributions from hon. Members. I open the debate to others.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Knife crime among children and young people has, for too long, been a stain on this country and our communities, and a blight on our collective social conscience. The increasing involvement of children, both as perpetrators and victims, cannot and should not be ignored. It is this, at its heart, that collectively we must change, and I look to the Government to grasp the nettle on that. Although the public health approach that they are likely to adopt has merit, there is need for a sustained, impassioned intervention to prevent our children from becoming murderers, and to remove this fictional threat that they are buying into to make them feel safe even when they actually already are. I thank all Members who have spoken for taking the time to contribute to this important debate, and for paying tribute to those who have lost their lives. I am pleased that we have been able to put heat and light on some of the often overlooked aspects of the cause of this issue and on the potential solutions too. There is much to do in addressing the root cause of this issue, and we have tried to cover myriad factors as broadly as we can, but I am conscious that this topic is too broad to solve in just one debate. I hope that, collectively, we have raised issues that give the Government pause to consider when developing their own strategy to achieve their aim. I would dearly love it if none of us ever had to raise the issue of knife crime in this House again. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of knife crime amongst children and young people.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The law simply does not act as a deterrent to many of these people. They are far more scared of their immediate surroundings and the danger posed to them in everyday life than they are of being arrested by a police officer, knowing full well that they are unlikely to go to prison unless they have done something as heinous as some of the acts that I have described. Ciaran Thapar, the author of the piece that I just described, appeared before the Youth Select Committee last December in his new role as director of public affairs and communications at the Youth Endowment Fund. There, he explained how drill was an outlet for those involved to express the trauma that they have experienced in their lives. Adverse childhood experiences are a key part of fuelling the likelihood of vulnerable individuals becoming involved in knife crime. There is a broader question here about immigration, particularly from countries where experiences of trauma, brutality and war are contributing factors in youth behaviours within multicultural inner-city communities. The Youth Endowment Fund does important work on knife crime, and its toolkit is often cited as a key resource in providing the tools required to reach children. Last week I spoke to Sharon Ward, the serious violence duty co-ordinator in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, covering my constituency of Huntingdon. The serious violence duty was introduced by the previous Government in January 2023, and requires local agencies to share data and information to help identify the root causes of serious violence occurring locally. When I spoke to Sharon about this in depth, she explained that they use a multi-agency public health approach, addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that an individual will become a victim or perpetrator of violence in the first place. The most vulnerable time for children and young people is from 3 pm to 6 pm, as well as later in the evening from 10 pm until 2 am. Diversionary activity is key to reducing those vulnerabilities. Sharon outlined how the path to becoming involved in violence is a slippery slope, where participation in antisocial behaviour is linked progression to more violent crime. I am sure that the subject of funding for youth services and cuts under the previous Government will be raised. I have focused on less discussed aspects of this wider issue in my speech; however, the part played by youth workers in reaching children and young people who are vulnerable and at risk of embarking on the wrong path is well-documented. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough currently have 41 interventions funded by the serious violence duty. They range from sport-based interventions to mentoring and relationship building, but all are designed to help those assessed as vulnerable. We must also be mindful that it is not simply about children from certain backgrounds—children from all backgrounds are vulnerable to exploitation by gangs. Those children do not realise that they are being exploited because of the way that they are being groomed—they are given new trainers, a PlayStation game or a bike by an older person they look up to or are fearful of, seemingly with no strings attached. Then they are on the hook and owe them at best a favour, or at worst a debt.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. Children seem to find themselves in a general atmosphere in which there is a constant need for validation and for them to twist themselves into something that they are not. My honest belief is that social media has played a huge part in that. It comes across as a facile answer to give, but when we delve into it, it is far more complex and damaging than we are prepared to credit. Any child can fall into criminality in this way. Sharon explained how parents need to be part of those discussions and alert to the warning signs. It is vital that schemes such as the serious violent duty continue to be funded, though I ask the Government to ensure that such funding is approved well ahead of time, rather than within a few weeks of its end, given the uncertainty that that often generates. I welcome the Government’s decision to ban zombie knives. Any steps taken towards reducing the chance of a fatal stabbing are a move in the right direction, but we must not smugly pat ourselves on the back and assume that that is all that is required. I was as critical of the previous Government’s attempt to ban zombie knives as I am of this one’s—not of the intent but of the way that it is announced as the solution rather than a tiny piece of the overall problem. Zombie knives account for just 3.6% of fatal stabbings, the same as a lock knife. Screwdrivers are a more commonly used weapon. However, by far and away the most common is the kitchen knife: 52.6% of fatal stabbings involve the type of knife that we all have and probably used this morning or last night in our own kitchen. Yes, the zombie knife should be banned, but given its use in a small minority of fatal stabbings, that is not the panacea that it is presented as. There have been proposals to change kitchen knives to have a rounded rather than a pointed tip, as outlined in research by Professor Graham Farrell and Toby Davies, and as championed by Idris Elba in his drive to tackle knife crime. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what consideration has been given to that idea, but we cannot pretend that kitchen knives are not and will not continue to be easily available to anyone with the intention of using one.