Ben Obese-Jecty MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2025 · Historic Slavery: Reparations · Hansard source

  More

  A quick question: to what extent do the Government support CARICOM’s 10-point plan for reparatory justice?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  As a veteran, I welcome the move to 2.5%. It is a milestone on the right track to increasing defence spending to 3.0% and probably beyond, particularly given that defence chiefs are reported to have requested 2.65%. With increasing defence spending and suggestions that British forces may be involved in a peacekeeping mission, along with ongoing support to Ukraine, it is reassuring to see that we are not prepared to acquiesce to Russian belligerence. With that in mind, as the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump, will he clarify with the President why the US sided with Russia and North Korea yesterday, voting against the European resolution that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine at the UN General Assembly?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Social Media Use: Minimum Age · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate; Kim Campbell for launching the petition; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate; and the 128,000 signatories of the petition, including 225 people from my constituency of Huntingdon. In a recent survey by More in Common of more than 2,000 parents, social media and excessive screen time was ranked as the top issue affecting children’s mental wellbeing: parents ranked it higher on the list of threats than alcohol, bullying and financial problems. Exposure to harmful content online was deemed the second biggest risk to mental health. The challenges facing children have changed astronomically in recent years. Children now face a boiling point of addiction, constant connectivity, online crime and harmful content. Many feel that it has become too much for children to handle. The evidence base is growing stronger. Smartphones and social media are adversely impacting our children’s mental health. The Royal Society for Public Health says that about 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression. In increasing numbers, children are coming into schools up and down the UK having stayed up all night on their phone. A child who has not had a healthy night’s sleep is not equipped to contribute to the classroom, except perhaps to disrupt it. Evidence from Health Professionals for Safer Screens shows that children who routinely spend extended periods on their smartphones have poorer eyesight, inhibited speech and language development, interrupted sleep and rising rates of anxiety. Smartphones are designed to be addictive. Platforms are constantly seeking to develop new design strategies that encourage children to stay online longer. Notifications, comments and likes are designed to drive feelings of happiness. It is easy for children to feel obliged to engage and even compete with their peers online. Of course, children access social media on mobile phones via the internet. Individually, each tool brings its own benefits. Mobile phones allow children to let parents know that they have reached school safely, providing an extra safeguard that allows them greater and earlier independence. The internet itself allows children to further their education, whether through research tasks, homework or practising coding; it also provides better connectivity, information and entertainment. The internet is so integral to society that we must ensure that children have the skillset and the know-how to navigate it. I expect that many hon. Members use social media every day, scrolling through their feeds, checking the news or drafting updates to their constituents. Social media has its benefits, not least because it allows us to communicate with people instantly and en masse, wherever they may be in the world. Used responsibly, social media can provide some benefits for children. Children may use it to stay connected with friends and family around the world. They may use it for civic engagement or to fundraise; they may use YouTube or short reels for online learning or content discovery. The drawbacks, however, are considerable: addiction to their screen, online bullying and exposure to harmful content such as eating disorders, self-harm and body shaming. There is some bad content on the internet. It is deeply concerning that half of 13-year-olds reported seeing hardcore, misogynistic pornographic material on social media sites. There are widespread concerns that this is impacting the way young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent. Half of parents worry that online pornography is giving their children an unrealistic view of sex. We see the same with knife crime: there is constant exposure to content that glamorises violence, exposes children to a world of criminality, gangs and scoreboard videos, and contributes to the perception that every teenager carries a knife and thus drives the urge for them to carry one themselves, too often with deadly consequences. What can be done to tackle these issues? The previous Government passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, which places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services to increase child safety online. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. As well as content, the Act applies to service functionality, including the way in which platforms are operated and used by children. Will the Minister confirm whether platforms will be obliged to manage and mitigate addictive functions if a provider’s risk assessment identifies habit forming that could cause sufficient harm? We are cleaning up the online space with world-leading legislation and an enforced regulator, but I worry that that is not enough. We should be having a conversation about the use of mobile phones in schools. The previous Government took action and issued guidance backing headteachers in restricting access to phones in schools. However, new research has shown that only 11% of schools are genuinely smartphone free, while children at smartphone-free schools get one to two grades higher at GCSE. That is why the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban mobile phone use in schools. It was disappointing that the Government rejected that amendment and that argument. Will the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department for Education about that policy? Conservatives want to put the safety of children first. I hope that the Minister agrees with that aim. The More in Common poll showed that nearly nine in 10 parents—86%—backed raising from 13 to 16 the so-called digital age of consent, the point at which children should be allowed on social media. Some Members have also proposed banning social media for children under 16. I note that the Secretary of State has not ruled that out, saying that it is “on the table” and that he “is not currently minded” to enact such a policy. Instead, the Government have announced the launch of a study to explore the effects of smartphone and social media use on children. It seeks to build the evidence base for future decisions designed to keep children safe online. The work is being led by a team at the University of Cambridge, with contributions from researchers at other leading universities. The project lead, Dr Amy Orben, says: “There is huge concern about the impact of smartphone use on children’s health, but the evidence base remains fairly limited. While the government is under substantial time pressure to make decisions, these will undoubtedly be better if based on improved evidence.” The Opposition agree that the evidence base needs to be improved, and we welcome the study. The last piece of substantial Government-backed research into children and mobile phone use was completed in 2019, before covid. We know the devastating impact of lockdown on children and how pandemic restrictions forced children to connect with their friends and schoolteachers online. That pushed children towards technology and social media, potentially leading to irreversible changes in behaviour. However, the timeline for the work is unclear. Although the research should be detailed and thorough, its publication should be timely. Will the Minister please outline when the study will report back to the Department and, given the dangers of delay, whether he has considered speeding it up? I am aware that the Children’s Commissioner has recently done some work to better understand the impact of mobile phones on children. Her insight could prove very valuable while the academics are researching in depth. I presume that the Minister has spoken to the commissioner, but can he update the House on what he has learned from those discussions? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points. The poll is a clear illustration of the strength of feeling among parents, but we all know—from our own families and our conversations with parents, teachers and children in our constituencies—the impact on children of mobile phones and social media. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the online world is a safe place for our children. We also have a responsibility to ensure that online platforms take their obligations seriously. I am pleased that the previous Government’s Online Safety Act delivers on both those points, and I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Opposition Members are broadly supportive of this Bill and its aims, which build on the work done by the previous Conservative Government and refined by Members of the other place. I will focus primarily on deepfakes and AI-generated images, specifically in relation to clauses 91 and 141. I commend Baroness Owen for her work on non-consensual images and deepfakes, and for pressing the Government to address this issue with more urgency. Her work brought about a U-turn on the intent-based amendment, pushed the Government to agree on solicitation, and pushed them to act on the deletion of content. Removing the intent-based amendment removes a huge hurdle for victims—a hurdle that would have required victims to prove the intentions of their tormentor. This would simply have placed more pressure on victims, while abusers would have been more likely to excuse their crimes. It is right that solicitation is now included in the Bill, as many cases have shown that it is not enough just to criminalise creation; we must also criminalise the people who ask others to create these images and videos for them. Otherwise, we run the risk of a loophole where images are posted on to sites and people from other jurisdictions create the content and send it back to the person requesting it. The Government tried to prevent custodial sentences from being an option for these abusers, as they argued that omitting “reasonable excuse” may breach the European convention on human rights. Given the content, I cannot see how perpetrators’ rights trump the rights of victims, but the change was made thanks to Baroness Owen and Members from across the parties in the other place, who persisted in making sure that the Government take all action needed to stop this growing criminal scourge. We have seen a surge in deepfakes, revenge porn and nudifying apps. This technology is the wild west and, unchecked, poses a danger to many in society. We must act to protect the most vulnerable from harm. I welcome that clause 91 establishes requirements for the commissioner to report on what actions have been taken. It is right that we see what is being done to combat these crimes. We have heard many reports of sexual images of children being generated and spread. This causes so much damage, and once such exploitative images are created and disseminated, they are near impossible to eradicate. As technology advances, we need to keep pace with new threats, lest technological change outstrip the pace of legislation. For too long, the law has been out of touch with fast-changing realities. There are apps just a few clicks away that allow users to generate their own AI boyfriend or girlfriend, and some of these apps can take real images and change them into sexually explicit figures that are already terrifyingly real. This is just one example of why we need further restrictions, with clear penalties for both platform providers and users. One app, undress-ai, processed over 600,000 images of women within 21 days of launching. These were ordinary women, with no knowledge that their image was being doctored in such a way and used, even traded, for the gratification of others. This is simply not right. Although consent is at the heart of aspects of the Bill, we need to look closely at provisions for withdrawing consent. This must be seriously considered, particularly where an image that is consensually exchanged is doctored into something that was never consented to. Though I welcome aspects of the Bill, we must ensure that we keep up with the rapid pace of change. Apps that cause great harm are readily accessible. I hope to hear more about what can be done to assist people to withdraw consent, so that we can end this vile abuse.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Huntingdon, I have two sites that form a key component of pre-clinical animal testing. Labcorp, where the testing takes place, and Marshall BioResources, where the beagle puppies are bred and then tested on. Almost none survive the testing process. While I do not support animal testing, I recognise that it is currently a necessary element of the pre-clinical testing process and cannot be phased out until non-animal methods have sufficient scope. The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation wrote to me in September outlining the Government’s approach to phasing out animal testing, but will the Government publish a timeline of what tests will be phased out via the work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research and when?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Hinchingbrooke Hospital · Hansard source

  More

  4. If he will take steps to repair Hinchingbrooke hospital before buildings containing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete reach the end of their lifespan in 2030.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Hinchingbrooke Hospital · Hansard source

  More

  Last July, Deborah Lee, the senior responsible officer for the Hinchingbrooke hospital redevelopment programme, stated that the deadline for the new hospital was 2030. In a written answer to me last year, the Minister confirmed that, even after the mitigation measures of failsafe steelwork, the lifespan of the remaining RAAC buildings would run only until approximately 2030. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the rebuild, and all waves of the new hospital programme, will not be delayed by the review of building safety regulations guidance announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in December? Will he assure my constituents that the RAAC buildings at Hinchingbrooke will be safe to use beyond 2030, and if so, will he publish the risk assessment that he has conducted to confirm that?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was not suggesting that people should not have the ability to clothe themselves; my point was that this is advertised on the Government website, and is a pull factor. What does this Bill do to address that pull factor?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Government, with this plan, will sadly not get on top of illegal immigration. The Secretary of State made much of the fact that the Bill will introduce powers that mirror counter-terror legislation “to allow law enforcement partners to disrupt, investigate and prosecute those facilitating organised immigration crime”, but law enforcement already has the ability to disrupt, investigate and prosecute. The Border Security Command and the recruitment of its commander were announced with great fanfare by the Government, but what is there to show for them? Having already removed any deterrent, the number of small boats has risen to its highest level. By the end of the year, the number had risen to more than 30,000 arrivals—now crossing with impunity. The Border Security Command is due to provide and oversee a long-term vision for the border security system, but what is that vision? Within that system, the commander is responsible for setting the system’s strategic priorities, but what are they? The commander was appointed in September, and it is now February, so when will he set the Government’s strategic priorities for border security? The default answer of the Minister for Border Security and Asylum to nearly every question is that the Border Security Command is providing “cross-system strategic leadership” to tackle organised immigration crime—because cross-system strategic leadership is the No. 1 thing that people smuggling gangs fear more than anything. I asked what the Border Security Command’s target is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what the Border Security Command’s timeline is for reducing the number of people entering the country via small boat: “cross-system strategic leadership”. I asked what Border Security Command provides in the way of cross-system strategic leadership to Border Force, to the National Crime Agency, to immigration enforcement and to the police. The response was: “The Border Security Command is, for the first time, providing system leadership across those partners.” Most importantly, several months after the Border Security Command was established, I asked how many organised immigration crime groups had been dismantled —or, to put that in terms that regular viewers may find more familiar, how many gangs have been smashed? The answer was that it is “collecting key data across the system… This will support the BSC’s ability to drive cohesive delivery across the system”. So none—not a single gang has been smashed. The Government have stated that their new approach to border security will focus on prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. Prevent will “disincentivise migrants”, but how will this legislation do that? Currently, if anybody is wondering whether the journey to the UK will be worth the risk, the gov.uk asylum support webpage states: “You can ask for somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both as an asylum seeker… You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast… You’ll usually get £49.18 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. It continues: “If you’ve been refused asylum but you’re still eligible for support you’ll be given: somewhere to live” and “£49.18 per person on a payment card for food, clothing and toiletries”. Whether someone is eligible for asylum or not, they will likely still get a home and £50 a week. What deterrent is there in this legislation to mitigate those pull factors? None.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. The Bill repeals most of the Illegal Migration Act, removes the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements to remove persons who entered the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country, and allows illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship—more incentives. The Illegal Migration Act blocked asylum seekers from claiming asylum based on their method of entry, so those who entered the country illegally via small boat were unable to claim asylum, not eligible for support and, crucially, not eligible to claim British citizenship. The Government talk tough on deportations, proudly boasting that they have deported record numbers of migrants, but more than 80% of those individuals are voluntary returns. When I asked the Home Office how much they were each awarded in financial incentives of up to £3,000 per person, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum could not provide that information. Why does she not know? Even those who lose the game still walk away with a cash prize. With no credible deterrent since the election, we have seen numbers rocket and migrant hotels reopen. In just three months since the election, the number of migrants in asylum hotels rose by 6,000, which is roughly equivalent to the population of the third biggest town in my constituency. Indeed, in Cambridgeshire, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) have asked the Home Office to rethink its decision to move 146 male asylum seekers into the Dragonfly hotel in Peterborough. I imagine that was not on their bingo card for the first six months of a Labour Government. The only deterrent in the Bill appears to be five years in prison if migrants refuse to be rescued in the channel by French authorities. I will be staggered if a single person is prosecuted for refusing to be rescued by the French. For reference, threatening someone with a weapon carries a maximum sentence of four years’ custody in the UK, so to suggest that migrants will receive a harsher sentence for not being rescued by French authorities is a nonsense. This is a terrible Bill that pays lip service to controlling illegal immigration by talking tough while crossing its fingers behind its back. We know that Government Members are more comfortable signing letters to stop deportation flights than they are actually deporting people, but this Bill pours fuel on the fire of illegal migration. It encourages it and facilitates it, and I would not be surprised if Lord Hermer had advised on it. The Bill makes for a snappy headline, but it will not be the solution needed to curtail illegal immigration.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Afghan Resettlement Programme · Hansard source

  More

  9. How many Afghans who worked directly for British forces have been relocated to the UK under the Afghan resettlement programme.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Afghan Resettlement Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Having admitted 30,000 Afghans into the country as part of the Afghan resettlement programme, it is concerning to learn that the Ministry of Defence has no idea how many of them actually ever worked for British forces. The Government’s own figures estimate the total number of local Afghans employed by British forces during Op Herrick to be around 7,000, only 2,850 of whom worked as interpreters and translators on the frontline—a fraction of the 30,000. If the MOD does not know why they are eligible to be let into the country, the MOD presumably also does not know who they are or what they have been doing in Afghanistan over the past decade. Can the Minister confirm that the Afghan resettlement programme has not been exploited by criminal, terrorist or hostile state influence?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gender Pay Gap · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday, a judge in an employment tribunal brought by the GMB union ruled that predominantly female Asda employees on the shop floor and predominantly male employees working in Asda’s warehouses—completely different roles with different conditions—were carrying out work of equal value. The ruling, which is similar to that which bankrupted Birmingham city council, could cost Asda £1.2 billion in back pay and an annual wage bill increase of £400 million—an even bigger blow than the additional £100 million increase in the company’s wage bill as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that private companies should be free to set different wages for completely different jobs, irrespective of the gender balance in those roles, without being overruled by the courts? [ Interruption. ]

• 5 Feb 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister confirmed to me in a written answer last week that we will not have a unilateral ability to extend the agreement. In December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said that he was confident that Members would back it when we saw the detail. This is seemingly a renegotiated deal, and we have not seen the detail of the original deal or this deal. What are the differences between the previous deal and the renegotiated deal, and when will the details be presented to Members of this House?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Online Safety Act will be one of the lasting accomplish-ments of the last Government. It is world-leading legislation that places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services, to increase safety online. Most importantly, this vital legislation ensures that children are better protected online. If it is worrying that children aged eight to 17 spend between two and five hours online per day, then it is deeply concerning that half of 13-year-olds reported seeing hardcore, misogynistic pornographic material on social media sites. It is for those reasons that Conservative Ministers ensured that there were the strongest measures in the Online Safety Act to protect children. For example, platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and will provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. Furthermore, the Act requires all in-scope services that allow pornography to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from accessing it, including services that host user-generated content and services that publish pornography. Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies who fail to fulfil their duties. The Act also includes provisions to protect adult users, as it ensures that major platforms are more transparent about what kinds of potentially harmful content they allow. It gives users more control over the types of content they want to see. The Act allocates regulated services into different categories to ensure that regulatory requirements are applied proportionately. The thresholds that we are debating follow Ofcom’s work and consultation on what platforms should be set as category 1, category 2A and category 2B. The highest-risk platforms—the largest social media and pornography sites—will be designated as category 1 and will bear the highest duty of care. Category 2A will contain the highest-risk search engines, such as Google and Bing, and category 2B will contain the remaining high-risk and high-reach sites. The regulations enable Ofcom to designate services subject to additional duties. That will address content that promotes, encourages or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, as well as content that is abusive or incites hate. Where users are likely to access this content, category 1 providers will be required to proactively offer adults optional features to reduce the likelihood of their encountering such content or to alert them to its nature. There are concerns that category 1 sites may omit smaller platforms with harmful content, and it may be prudent for the Government to look at redefining that at a later date. The Online Safety Act’s impact assessment concludes that more than 25,000 companies may be within scope of the new regulatory framework. Companies designated into higher categories will face additional risks as they face more duties. Can the Minister reassure tech companies, especially small and medium-sized businesses, that her Department will continue to work with them to ensure that cost is affordable and proportionate? I note that Ofcom expects the illegal harms safety duties to become enforceable around March 2025, once technology companies have assessed the risk of online harms on their platforms. Does the Minister agree that platforms do not need to wait, and should already be taking action to improve safety on their sites? Can the Minister confirm that she is encouraging platforms to take this proactive action? Separately from the Online Safety Act, the last Government launched the pornography review to explore the effectiveness of regulation, legislation and the law enforcement response to pornography. I understand that that review has now concluded. Can the Minister provide her reassurance that the review’s final report will be published imminently? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on these points. The Online Safety Act is a pivotal piece of legislation and makes the UK the safest place in the world to be a child online. I am proud of the previous Government’s role in passing it, and I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service: Efficiency · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to increase efficiency in the Child Maintenance Service.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service: Efficiency · Hansard source

  More

  I have multiple casework examples from constituents in Huntingdon who have been impacted by CMS inefficiencies, including incorrectly calculated arrears with no explanation of how the sums have been calculated, and failure to verify the location of fathers who are not providing financial support, with the CMS claiming that addresses needed to be independently verified but not conducting that verification itself. Such cases have resulted in consolatory payments from the CMS for maladministration and service delays. In all instances, my constituents have been frustrated by their inability to contact the CMS over the phone. In the quarter ending September 2024, 41% of calls to the Child Maintenance Service were not answered. What are the Government doing to improve contact with the CMS by telephone?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Huntingdon, a new solar farm of 1,900 acres is proposed. It spans from my constituency across into North Bedfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) represents. The local population have spent a lot of time liaising with both me and my hon. Friend with regard to the impact that it will have and the lack of consultation that they have experienced. They have been told that realistically, they will receive no real benefit from the solar farm’s being there. They will certainly not receive directly cheaper energy bills for having it built right on their doorstep. What would the Minister say to those constituents, and the constituents of the other Members in this room, who are in effect having nationally significant infrastructure projects foisted on them and who do not feel that they have a say or any real ability to push back on that?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Unity contract and the work done by the previous Government to initiate it. It is a critical step in maintaining our submarine fleet and facilitating our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence. The Minister recently confirmed to me that, excluding Trident, our defence spending as a percentage of GDP is actually only 1.9%. That puts the UK 23rd of 32 NATO countries, below North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and others. Our non-nuclear NATO partners currently spend proportionally more than we do on conventional forces, while Trident is a measure of last resort. To ensure that we are properly resourced for high-intensity, multi-domain collective defence, should our NATO spending commitment not be to meet that target on conventional forces, with our nuclear capability in addition to that?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest · Hansard source

  More

  The current Attorney General has a track record of taking up multiple cases against the British Government. Given his previous work with regards to both Gerry Adams and the families of those making claims against UK special forces, on which matters will the Attorney General recuse himself from advising Ministers owing to clear conflicts of interest? If he is not able to fulfil the full scope of his role owing to his prior career, is his position even tenable?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This week, we saw the tragic murder of Leo Ross, who was just 12 years old. Two weeks ago, 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa was also murdered. The fatal stabbing of a child has become an all-too-familiar occurrence. The number of teenagers murdered by knife has doubled in the past decade. Teenagers are twice as likely to be fatally stabbed as any other demographic. The Government have pledged to halve knife crime, legislating to ban zombie knives, but they account for only 3.6% of murders involving a knife. Kitchen knives account for over 52.6%, and everybody has access to a drawer full of those in their own home. We desperately need a conversation about the root causes of knife crime, why the situation is now worse than ever, and why our children are, shockingly, prepared to kill other children—why they find it so easy to take a life. Will the Leader of the House make time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss the causes of knife crime?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. I have been contacted by so many pillars of the community in my constituency who are deeply concerned about what this might mean for their places of worship. This is about the preservation of heritage, ensuring that our future generations can enjoy places of beauty and history central to our heritage and culture. In Great Staughton, St Andrew’s church has stood for 800 years. The chair of their renovation project, Anthony Withers, wrote to me at the end of last year, deeply concerned that their aim of building a community space might be affected or even rendered unfeasible if they are unable to claim back the VAT. Anthony expressed how this project was not aimed at conventional churchgoers, but rather a space for musical, theatrical and other community events. He would dearly like to hear assurances that 800 years of history will be able to carry on, with St Andrew’s remaining at the centre of their community. I also received a moving email from a constituent who was deeply concerned about the future of the medieval All Saints church in Hamerton. The church was where she was married, where her children were christened and, she hopes, where future family marriages and christenings will happen too. However, with work needed to keep the church building safe, she is worried that the future of All Saints may now be at risk. From Hamerton to Hertford, where the treasurer of All Saints parish church explained to me that in the last six years alone they have been able to claim back £50,000 for various projects, including repairs to the church tower, refurbishment of the bells, a new gas boiler, restoration and rebuild of the church organ, installation of a new lighting system and the limewash on the internal walls—all work that must be done to keep that church going. The site has had a church standing on it for nearly 1,000 years. Our churches and places of worship are resorting to ever more inventive and ingenious ways to raise funds for the upkeep of their ageing buildings. All Saints Parish church in St Ives runs a popular event twice a year called “Booze in the Pews”. I attended the last two events and spoke with the vicar, Mark Amey. The funds raised go towards the upkeep of the church and, for anybody passing through my constituency in a fortnight’s time, the next event will be from 6 to 8 February—but I digress. I know that all Members see on a daily basis the importance of these places and the people who selflessly devote their lives to serving those whom we represent. In summing up, on behalf of all the constituents represented by the Members present, I ask the Minister to outline what steps the Government will be taking in order to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  On what dates were the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made aware that Axel Rudakubana was in possession of ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual, and will the inquiry cover public communications after the murders?

• 20 Jan 2025 · UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  Pillar 2.3 states: “Throughout the duration of the Declaration, neither Participant will be left alone in the face of an attack or aggression.” To what extent does that act as a NATO article 5 commitment in lieu of Ukraine joining NATO? Does it, like article 5, facilitate direct UK military action in support of Ukraine should it be attacked again in the future in violation of the UN charter? Are other NATO allies also negotiating similar pacts, and to what extent do they complement this one?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon is one of the RAAC hospitals for which funding has already been approved. That hospital will not be allocated grid space until quarter 1 of 2028, but it will need it by Q1 2027 in order to keep the build on track. Additionally, traffic around the hospital is frequently gridlocked. A vital new access road is part of the plans, but the land where it would go is owned by Cambridgeshire constabulary and National Highways, who are yet to give up the additional land they acquired via compulsory purchase order when constructing Views Common Road. Will the Health Secretary meet me in order to work through those blockers—given that they are all being caused by Government agencies—and meet Hinchingbrooke hospital’s 2030 delivery date, and can he confirm that the 2030 date is still the target?