5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am going to give this speech backwards, inasmuch as I am going to start with the end and the ask. I ask the Government to introduce an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is in Committee in the House of Lords. I would like the Bill amended to reduce the minimum age at which community protection notices can be issued, from 16 years old to 10 years old—the age of criminal responsibility in England. That was proposed under the last Government’s version of the Bill, which died when the general election was called. Having started with the end of my speech, now let me begin at the beginning. I represent Spelthorne—I feel compelled to remind the House that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything immediately south of Heathrow airport down to the River Thames. As well as having a decent stretch of one bank of the River Thames, from Staines to Sunbury, we are also blessed with extensive and much-prized green spaces such as Staines Moor, Sunbury Park and Leyland Park. Water is a major feature of Spelthorne, because the land has been quarried over the years—much of it for the building of the M25—and we are home to half of London’s drinking water, stored in four enormous reservoirs. All that means that Spelthorne, for a largely suburban area inside the M25, is a good home for wildlife, particularly bird life. Indeed, every year visitors flock from miles around to witness the start of that most quintessentially English and iconic event, swan upping, which starts at Sunbury lock. We are also home to the Swan Sanctuary in Felix Lane; started in the 1980s, it now cares for injured and damaged mute swans from across the south of England.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for his faith in my knowledge of Northern Ireland-specific wildlife legislation—funnily enough, I am going to mention Northern Ireland in a moment. I certainly believe in robust enforcement of existing legislation, and I will come on to some practical additional measures that could be taken to rid us of this scourge. When I visited Steve and his amazing team of volunteers at the Swan Sanctuary, I saw at first hand the horrible injuries to swans—and to all the other types of birds that the sanctuary cares for—caused by people firing at them with catapults. I said that I would look into the matter further, and have secured this debate in order to share what I have learned with the House. In many people’s minds catapults have a sort of cheeky-chappie, comic-book image. As a boy growing up on Barnes common, I remember finding a good Y-shaped stick, making a catapult for myself and shooting at discarded Coke cans as target practice—but catapult technology has moved on from its Dennis the Menace days. The ones that can be bought now will fire a ball-bearing at 73 mps.
I thank the hon. Member for bringing her personal experience as a police officer to this debate. I thank her for her service. These new catapults have awesome power, and could easily take out your eye, Sir Desmond, or indeed other hon. Members’ eyes, and cause life-changing injuries. In fact, in my time in the army, in riots in Northern Ireland, I had them used against me; they were a gateway weapon for kids who would later graduate to the coffee jar bomb and the nail bomb.
The hon. Gentleman echoes my cry. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, in all my dealings with the community, too often it becomes a conversation of the deaf, inasmuch as people think that there is no point in reporting crime because the police will not do anything about it, and the police say, “Well, no one has reported any crime, so there’s nothing for me to do.” We must unlock that conversation of the deaf by encouraging everyone to report every crime; in cases where they are worried about intimidation, they have the opportunity to use Crimestoppers, and I commend that outlet as well. In Spelthorne, we have a serious problem with young kids using catapults on animals. I am obliged to Inspector Matthew Walton of Spelthorne police, who has helped me a great deal in preparing this campaign. The police tell me that in Spelthorne over the past year and a half crimes involving catapults have been reported to them more than once a week. The crimes happen predominantly after schools have ended, and in 90% of cases no suspect or even person of interest is identified. Spelthorne police, to their credit, tell me that they are going back to reviewing a number of these cases to make sure that they did not miss anything the first time round and to see whether any particular patterns emerge. My constituents notice the crimes happening; sadly, they too often see the wounded and killed wildlife when they are out enjoying our green spaces and river walks.
I believe that the Green party is led by a hypnotist; it seems that the Government Benches have a mind reader, too, because the hon. Gentleman must have seen into the future and what I was about to say. My constituents write to me in numbers to express their distress at this scourge. Spelthorne borough council has responded and has in place a public space protection order for catapults across the whole borough. Unfortunately, though, the council will not enforce a PSPO breach if the individual is under 16. That is the council’s choice, but I would prefer it to reduce that minimum age considerably. I went out for a ride-along with the response team of the Spelthorne police two weeks ago. We had an intelligence briefing beforehand, and what was striking was the ages of the young people we were keeping an eye out for—they were all 16 and under, and had records for some very serious offences. Catapults are predominantly kids’ stuff, by which I mean children of 10 years old and up. Currently in Spelthorne, anyone committing an offence will have their catapult seized and be issued a fine by the council, while those under 16 will have their parents informed and the catapult returned to the parent. The trouble with the current powers is that they rely on someone’s being caught offending and, as I said earlier, these crimes are rarely witnessed. When I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, we faced a lethal threat from improvised explosive devices. There was, of course, a whole raft of things that we did and drills that we learned in order to react and save life when those things when went off, but the majority of effort and ingenuity was applied to try to stop it happening in the first place—we had to do everything to the left of the bang, as the saying went. It is similar with catapults. The police would like to pre-empt this problem before it happens, and believe that reducing the minimum age of a community protection notice to 10 years would allow early intervention before bad behaviour escalates. It would also provide a proportionate civil response without criminalising children and reduce reliance on lengthy court processes. To be clear, the process at the moment is that the police can combine the public space protection order and the community protection notice to intervene early. It is a civil offence. A community protection warning is the first step; if people do not adhere to that warning, they get a notice, and the breach of a notice itself becomes a criminal offence currently punishable by a £100 fine, although in the consideration of the Crime and Policing Bill in the other place, on the back of the former Government’s draft legislation, that is going up to £500. I know that there is public support for an outright ban on catapults. Others want them regulated in the same way we regulate guns, or possession of them treated as we treat possession of knives. A volunteer at the Swan Sanctuary launched a public petition to make catapults illegal, which received 24,521 signatures. There is currently a live petition asking to make it an offence to carry a catapult in public without a lawful defence, which currently has more than 33,000 signatures and is live until next year. The Government know they have a problem; I am obliged to the Minister for animal welfare, Baroness Hayman, for replying to me recently. She said that the Government feel that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book to handle the problem, but nevertheless stated: “Having said this, I recognise the concern that the misuse of catapults is causing to communities in certain parts of the country. I attended a meeting earlier this month with the Home Office’s Minister of State and two members of parliament to discuss solutions to combatting this very issue. I am determined that with key partners, we can agree a way forward to protect our wildlife, the public and property from these appalling acts.” I hope that what the Minister hears today can inform those considerations, and I will gladly take an intervention from either of the two mystery Back Benchers the Minister referred to in her letter, if indeed they are here today.
Another mystery cleared up by Inspector Jopp; I wish I had been as successful on my drive-around with the Spelthorne police the other day. As well as my ask on reducing the minimum age at which protection notices can be served, I also want to put in a word for parental responsibility and alternative outlets for young people’s energy, competitiveness and desire to shoot and hit things. I hear weekly in the Chamber how my party is responsible for running down youth services to the point of annihilation, so I want to raise the roof in relation to what happens in my constituency. On Friday night, I went to the extraordinary, world-leading Spelthorne Gymnastics. It has 1,600 students. At the European championships at Easter, Team GB took away five gold medals, and all five were won by people who came from Spelthorne Gymnastics. In Shepperton, I also have a kids’ darts thing—if anyone is looking for a side-hustle business idea, this is the one. It is above what was probably a Conservative club before. It is a sports and social club, and on the top floor, there are five dartboards and they run two one-hour sessions. The first is for nine to 14-year-olds and the second is for 15 to 18-year-olds. There are five boards and five people per board. I was there for two hours, and I did not see a single one of those young people get a phone out once. They learn brilliant mental maths, sportsmanship, discipline, competition, mutual respect and understanding. I was absolutely blown away. When I went to my local barber the other day, the guy who runs the darts, and is one of the coaches, was coming out. He said, “Lincoln, you will not believe it. We’ve got 36 on the waiting list now.” On the night that I was there, I asked a parent who had driven their child there how far they had come, and they said from Notting Hill. For Members who do not get the geography, I am out near Heathrow airport. They said that it was the only place that does this. So all points in between—take a note of this Westminster Hall debate. For those who want to point and shoot, we also have the Laleham archery club, which has a very good youth programme. They compete, and I had a go myself at Laleham fair. It is a lot of fun and, again, it teaches discipline—there is shooting and all of that. Of course, we then have the cadets. I am blessed with sea cadets, air cadets and Army cadets, all of which are a brilliant way of channelling young people’s energy and giving them a sense of purpose and discipline. Lastly, I will highlight my boxing club, which is predominantly staffed by volunteers. I think it has 20 boxers and another 20 on the waiting list. Its site is very cramped and they would dearly love to expand. The combination of parental responsibility and parents just giving enough of a whatever about their young people’s wellbeing to invest in them and get them to go and do these activities—or, indeed, parents investing their time to make these things happen—is all to the good. It means that the attraction of sitting in a hedge, firing ball bearings at swans recedes into the distance. I will end in a couple of minutes, but first I will read out some correspondence that I received earlier. The gentleman concerned is not a constituent, so I will not name where he is from, but Members will get the general picture: “My name is Chris, and I volunteer with the”— here he mentions the location— “Wildlife Network. I’ve spent years on the front line—picking up bodies, comforting dying animals, and witnessing a level of cruelty that is rapidly escalating. I appreciate that my concerns have been acknowledged, but I am devastated that no action is being taken to regulate catapults. The situation is stark. At one of my local lakes alone there were 13 catapult attacks in May, 19 in September and 7 in November. This year I have reported 54 attacks, yet only two are being investigated—even with clear video evidence”— again, I stress that this is not in Spelthorne. He continues: “A recent FOI request showed only 13 wildlife-crime convictions across England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. We are told the laws ‘already exist’, but these outcomes say otherwise. Government departments continue to insist catapults are not weapons and are not used against wildlife. On the ground, we know this is simply untrue. This is no longer just a wildlife issue. Two cats have been shot dead. A dog has lost an eye. I myself have been threatened, chased, and ignored. I have provided body-cam footage to police only to watch nothing happen. In another incident, after being repeatedly targeted with eggs, officers arrived two hours later and refused to speak to the boys responsible. The message this sends is dangerous: you can commit these acts and face no consequences. Experts agree on the seriousness. In a BBC documentary, a ballistics specialist confirmed catapults can fire at 134 mph, and surgeons have treated people with shattered bones and life-changing injuries. These are not toys—they are weapons. We are not asking for a ban. We are asking for basic regulation, no more extreme than requiring a fishing licence. Catapults should be classed as offensive weapons, and it should be illegal to carry them in public without lawful reason. What is extreme is the violence and impunity we are currently facing.” While that correspondent has a different solution from the one that I am proposing, I hope that the Minister can understand the strength of feeling, both in this House and out in our constituencies. Although the Government’s position is that they consider sufficient legislation to be in place, I ask that the Minister consider our proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which would reduce the minimum age from 16 to 10 years old for community protection notices.
I am grateful to the Minister and conscious of time. Does she agree that, when people are concerned about intimidation and identification, they can ring Crimestoppers anonymously and report in that way?
I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who have attended this debate and the public officials who have recorded our deliberations. I heard from the Minister that there is broad consensus on the fact that there is a problem, and that early intervention is better than picking up the pieces. I have made my point about extending the age group eligible for community protection notices, and hope that, in the Minister’s wider considerations, she can give a second thought to that before the Crime and Policing Bill continues its progress through the House of Lords. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of catapults and anti-social behaviour.
8. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. There is a rumour going round Whitehall that the Foreign Secretary is not the Foreign Secretary, and that the real Foreign Secretary is Mr Jonathan Powell. That could not possibly be the case, of course, because it would make a mockery of the ability to hold the Foreign Secretary to account. Can the Foreign Secretary demonstrate that she really is in charge by telling us the precise instructions that she gave Mr Powell before he met the Chinese Foreign Minister four days ago?
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on arranging this debate. He is a tireless champion for his constituents. I can testify to his enthusiasm for Spelthorne Gymnastics, as he shared with us all some videos of his visit, of which my only criticism was that he was not in formation in them, which is something I expect to be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Law and order is the bedrock of a strong society, but the laws we make in this House are meaningful only when they are enforced. In too many areas, there is a troubling gap between the rules on paper and the reality of people’s lives. When it comes to catapults, we have the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, all of which authorise meaningful powers for police officers to stop this sort of behaviour, but many people feel that those powers are not being used effectively, and too often they are right. We have heard this afternoon too many examples from my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Windsor (Jack Rankin), and from my county neighbours, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson). If they would like us, as a cross-party group, to discuss this issue with Kent police, I would be very keen to join them. I know the issue too well from reports of catapult-related crimes in my own constituency. In Marden, criminals have killed wildlife. In Staplehurst, bus windows have been smashed and passengers injured by flying glass. In Tenterden, a kitchen window was shattered by a catapulted marble. In Cranbrook, Woodpeckers Preschool suffered three smashed windows overnight. This sort of behaviour is horrible for those subjected to it, and it must not go unchallenged. It erodes trust in the state and contributes to a sense that our country is becoming more lawless and disorderly. Early responses to my ongoing constituency crime survey show that of those who say they have been a victim of crime, roughly two in three did not report it, because they felt that would not lead to any action. Our constituents do not want to live in a society in which someone can smash a pre-school window or kill a theoretically protected animal with a catapult and simply get away with it. Catapults themselves are not new, but as we have heard this afternoon, the scale and brazenness of their misuse are. In Kent, for example, police believe that slingshot usage has risen by more than 40% in just two years. For too many people, antisocial behaviour is becoming the background noise of everyday life, creating a creeping sense that our public spaces are not safe or respected. We must be honest about what this behaviour means in practice. It is criminal damage, intimidation and harassment, and, far too often, cruelty to wildlife. As several hon. Members have said, it could easily also become assault or bodily harm. On paper, these offences carry serious penalties, but our legislation is only as strong as our willingness and ability to enforce it. At the very least, the Government must ensure that our current laws are being properly enforced before looking to make new ones. Sadly, under this Government, police numbers have been falling. There has been a decline of more than 1,300 officers in a single year. Recruitment is down by 17%. Rising costs from recent Budgets, particularly changes to employer’s national insurance contributions, have created millions in unplanned pressure for policing. What is the Minister’s plan to increase recruitment and retention of police officers? Will she set out the assessment the Home Office has made of the impact of the national insurance changes on policing capacity? This October, the Opposition put forward a plan to tackle those sorts of crimes. We would recruit 10,000 additional police officers, backed by £800 million of funding, and would triple the use of stop and search, returning it to 2008 levels and giving officers the backing they need to take weapons and dangerous items off our streets. Will the Minister adopt our plan for 10,000 new officers and 2,000 in hotspot patrol areas? Will she confirm that the Government will give the police the powers and political backing they need to enforce the laws Parliament has passed, including through greater use of stop and search? Our public safety depends not only on the passing of Bills in this House, but on our ability to enforce our laws consistently and effectively.
I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing this debate and highlighting the issues, and thank him for his ongoing work to help to make the island a better place to live for women and girls. I associate myself with all his remarks and arguments. Policymakers and commissioners have often overlooked the unique challenges that we face as an island. I urge the current Government, although it would be true of any Government, to remember the challenges we face and to be prepared to make special provision for us, because we are a populated island in England, which is a unique thing.
The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many?
15. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.
Last night, the Prime Minister said some tough things about China. He said: “It’s time for a serious approach” to the national security risk from China. The first opportunity to demonstrate that serious approach is on the planning application for China’s new super-embassy—complete, as we now know it is, with secret basement rooms. In her previous role, the Foreign Secretary wrote a letter in favour of the application, but given her new instructions from the Prime Minister, does she now agree that the application should be refused?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and my constituency neighbour, for securing this important debate. Without it, I doubt that I would have the chance to raise in Parliament an issue that is extremely important to my constituents in Windsor, Eton, Datchet, Horton, Old Windsor and Wraysbury, where his constituency and mine border each another. In particular, I will focus on a recent series of heinous offences that has touched many of my constituents—that is, I am afraid to say, the callous murder of swans with high-velocity catapults. Swans are an iconic symbol of Windsor and of this country. They are the king’s birds. The yearly tradition of swan upping is a great community event, with all the mute swans along the Thames being counted and given a health check. As such, swans are treated with reverence—like royalty—in my community and across this country. I have visited local swan charities and seen the work that they do to nurse swans back to full health and get these beautiful animals back in the water, where they should be. That is what creates such affection between these animals and our community. Having met the brilliant Wendy Hermon at Swan Support, an outstanding local charity, I have seen at first hand just how much she cares for swans and other precious Thames wildlife. Unfortunately, during my recent visit, Wendy had to detail to me the most recent horrific slaughter in Old Windsor of a proud male swan affectionately named Pete, who had a mate and multiple cygnets, which, sadly, have now been left behind. Having seen these birds up close, we all know that swans are truly magnificent animals, and to see images of them floating dead on the water provokes a feeling of real sadness and, frankly, outrage. Why anybody would do such a thing is beyond me. It is completely unnecessary, and it is barbarous. I also have fears about the individuals who carry out such acts, presumably in a group setting, egging one another on, and presumably for the benefit of social media. Where does that antisocial urge end, and what could it possibly escalate to? Recently, a cat was killed in Datchet. We need to nip this in the bud before it becomes people next. Back in April, we had a really productive meeting. It was called by Swan Support and hosted by Eton town council. We were joined by the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, the King’s swan upper, Eton town councillors and a local royal borough councillor. We concluded at the time that the royal borough should introduce a public space protection order, which would give the police the power to challenge people, issue a fine and seize catapults, in the right instances. We thought that that was the best way forward. However, I am sorry to say that in the following five months it seems like little progress has been made. That is typical in the royal borough for something not involving Maidenhead. Runnymede borough council has been receptive and is cracking on, and I know that Spelthorne borough council, in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne, has already been successful. I am, however, glad to say that after the excellent work of Wendy at Swan Support, and others pushing the royal borough, the consultation on a PSPO banning the carrying of catapults in Windsor, Eton, Old Windsor, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury has finally opened. I urge as many of my constituents as possible to respond to it on the RBWM Together website. I hope to see the ban introduced after the consultation ends on 8 January. As it stands, a police officer could see a group of youths—I am afraid to say that in my constituency it is often youths from the Traveller community—walking around the town with catapults, clearly not using them for fishing bait, and yet be pretty powerless to confiscate them. That must change. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what more can be done to cut down on antisocial behaviour and the misuse of catapults, so that my constituents can have peace of mind and our swans can be protected. I hope she will join me in urging the royal borough to do the right thing and introduce the PSPO.
T3. Australia has listed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism. What discussions have Ministers had with their Australian counterparts about matching that important action against terror at home and abroad?
It is always a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I will follow the Minister’s lead by starting with the ESG ratings order before moving on to the draft regulations. The Minister usefully and clearly set out the Government’s view of the ESG ratings order and what it aims to achieve. I want to ask two questions in particular, straight out of the gate. First, although she referred to this slightly in answering the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, could she go into more depth about the approaches taken in other jurisdictions—particularly the United States and the EU? What are the specific implications for our competitiveness? She mentioned that she is open to alignment with other jurisdictions, and she specifically said that she is open to allowing the ratings of overseas ratings providers to be recognised in this country. But will she address the specific point about competitiveness and where the order stands in the global ecosystem of ESG ratings regulation? It would be helpful to understand that. Secondly, I understand that in the responses to the consultation concerns were raised about charities being granted an exemption. Is the Minister concerned that charities, and particularly household names, might publish ESG scores against certain companies and sectors that investors take seriously, despite there being a lack of transparency on how those scores were reached? I have taken a particular interest as that legitimate concern stood out from the consultation. As the Minister considers those answers, it is useful for us to step back as we think about ESG to ensure that, as we scrutinise the draft order, we talk about the overall effectiveness of ESG in supporting the interests of savers and investors in the country. My view, having led an ESG team in my previous life—I think this view is shared by a lot of savers and investors in the industry— is that investment managers should always act with the aim of delivering sustainable returns for investors. From the teacher who has paid into their pension their whole life to the entrepreneur who has just sold their business and invested all their money, many people from all walks of life entrust their money to investment firms and portfolio managers, and they rightly expect financial professionals to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities. In recent years, however, many, including me, have expressed the view that the rise of ESG has allowed and encouraged some fund managers to impose their own values on investment portfolios, thereby potentially impacting the returns achieved for thousands of investors. Of course, where individuals have enough money for a separate account, or where other retail investors choose to invest in a dedicated ESG fund, that is their choice. They may well pay a premium for not investing in certain industries and be comfortable with that.
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point. It is a very hot topic right now, in terms of our national security, and I think there are implications when it comes to ESG ratings and the overall ESG approach that many fund managers take. As I was saying, the overall picture is that there is a risk that everyday savers might miss out on returns because of the values and ideals pursued by a particular fund or fund manager, without their expressed wishes necessarily being taken into account. If we accept, as many do, that this is a problem for funds, it follows that it extends to those who provide ESG ratings, too. Therefore, more transparency, which this measure achieves, could and should help to mitigate the risk for savers. At a broader level, I have made very clear my personal opinion that ESG has gone too far towards values-driven investing, while neglecting to include our collective national, strategic and economic interest. At a time when the world is increasingly geopolitically unstable, and with an aggressive Russia at the door of Europe, is it really responsible or ethical to shun investment in defence companies? I believe this mindset undermines our national security effort, but it also means that savers and investors could miss out on better returns. The FTSE 100 index is up around 19% for the year to date, compared with shares in Rolls-Royce, which are up 77%; shares in BAE, which are up 38%; and shares in Babcock, which are up 118%. Those companies form the bedrock of the British defence industry. Over the past year, they would have delivered better-than-average investment returns for savers, but so many savers have been excluded from investing in such companies, perhaps without their knowledge. Similar national importance could be attached to oil and gas companies and investments. Even the Climate Change Committee has been clear that the consumption of oil and gas will be needed for years to come as part of our energy security. Yet just last week, the National Energy System Operator warned that Britain could face gas shortages by 2030 if the industry—
I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Harris. This is related to ESG, which is about environmental, social and governance principles, and accordingly an investment approach and ratings. I was talking about defence as part of the “S”, and oil and gas as part of the environment.
I will end my point by simply suggesting that it is not serving investors or the country well by being excluded from oil and gas companies or defence stocks as part of an ESG strategy that they perhaps did not know about. I now turn to the draft regulations, which revoke assimilated EU law relating to financial services and replace it with rules set by the Bank of England and the PRA. This is part of an ongoing process to repeal and replace assimilated EU financial services law following our departure from the European Union. The purpose of the draft regulations is largely to revoke the relevant parts of the assimilated prudential regime, as set out in the capital requirements regulation, and replace them with the PRA rules, as the Minister set out. As the Minister made clear, the draft regulations make consequential technical amendments to UK legislation for the purpose of legal coherence. In practice, any references to revoked CRR provisions will be read as references to the corresponding PRA rules. Where no PRA rule exists, the amendments will help to avoid gaps in the legal framework, with which I think we can all agree. This instrument continues the process begun under the previous Government, as the Minister said, and therefore the Opposition do not oppose it.
I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to take part in this debate about the adequacy of funding to support homeless people. At the outset, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for securing this debate. I know how important this topic is to him, and his forensic opening speech this morning emphatically underlined that. I am confident I speak for all sides of the House when I say how appreciated his tireless efforts have been to address the tragedy of homelessness. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. Just over a month ago, I had the pleasure of coming to this place and hearing 17 speeches from a range of hon. Members on the issue of homelessness. Some of them are here again today and some are not. I said at the time that homelessness is a “social tragedy” wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. That we are back here again shows both the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and its significance to hon. Members across the House. Unfortunately, since the last debate, things have got worse rather than better. The future cost of living looks worse—certainly in the wake of last week’s rather gloomy Budget. The future of house building and the Government’s manifesto promise to build 1.5 million homes appear to be in dire straits, and the state of local government finances again appears bleak and unlikely to improve. On top of all of that, the long-awaited homelessness strategy, first pledged in the Government’s manifesto a year and a half ago, continues to be late and remains unpublished. The strategy was first promised to us in 2024, with the publication repeatedly said to be forthcoming. We were then repeatedly told by the Minister’s predecessor that it was due for publication following the conclusion of the spending review—which was six months ago. In a parliamentary question answered just last week we continued to be told that it will be published “later this year”. It is 2 December today and the year is running out. It may be advent, the season of waiting, but there are many who consider this to be an unacceptable and damaging delay, particularly the charities and homeless people waiting for the Government to take serious action. It would be a very welcome early Christmas present if the Minister were to announce its publication this morning. In saying that, I acknowledge that the Government have not been totally idle. They have introduced some additional funding: a £69.9 million uplift to the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, an additional £10.9 million for supporting children experiencing homelessness, and £3 million for the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme. The funding is welcome, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech and others have mentioned, funding must come with strategy and purpose and that is something we are yet to see. As I said in this Chamber in October: “prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness”.—[Official Report, 21 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 312WH.] That was a central focus in the last Government’s approach which produced £2.4 billion of funding to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness including the rough sleeping initiative and £547 million over the period from April 2022 to March 2025 before schemes such as the RSI were rolled up into one by the current Government. The rough sleeping initiative provided locally led tailored support and services for rough sleepers, providing direction and strategy at the most local levels. The Minister’s Department has so far failed to provide itself and its fellow Departments with a national strategy. Simply spending money will not do the job, and funding without purpose or direction can actually damage efforts to achieve the critical goal of ending homelessness. Much of the responsibility and funding for tackling homelessness lies with local government. Bills for homelessness accommodation have soared to £3.8 billion across 2024-2025—a 25% increase in a single year. There are now a record number of people in temporary accommodation, including 169,050 children in England—a 12% increase in a year. The result of that is that councils are now warning that homelessness poses one of the biggest threats to their financial viability. Homelessness is a statutory demand-led and highly acute pressure on local government. The Government’s answer so far has not been to provide more support, but to take money away from many councils as part of their so-called fair funding formula. In introducing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has called their “unfair funding” model for local authorities the Government are funnelling money away from councils predominantly in the south to send to councils predominantly in the north. It is hard to see that as anything other than a partisan cash grab and a punitive targeting of many well-run councils, especially penalising those who have historically kept council taxes low and controlled spending better. Some of the most affected areas, including the south- east, are witnessing a large rise in homelessness and simultaneously a potentially catastrophic drop in funding thanks to the fair funding policy. How does that reconcile with the need to go further to tackle this soaring issue? The answer is that it does not. It certainly does not help that councils are being punished and losing money for the crime of being comparatively well run when they are still trying to play their role in providing temporary accommodation to those 126,040 households.
I will not. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he cares passionately about this issue, but we are running out of time. I need to leave time for the Minister to respond and for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to conclude. The figure of 126,040 households is a 15.7% increase on 2023. The Government need to rethink this policy for the sake of local government and those who have a statutory requirement to help. It is not just local authorities that are under additional pressure. Homeless Link found that thanks to the Chancellor’s national insurance hike, the 2024 autumn Budget removed between £50 million and £60 million of vital funding from smaller organisations that provide homelessness services. It is sad that the Government’s announcements on homelessness funding, as welcome as they are, to some extent merely fill the gaps that the Treasury created. It is also important that the Government work to make housing more affordable, including with proper funding for social and affordable homes. Unfortunately, the Government are not making the progress that they promised. On funding for affordable housing, despite the Chancellor’s boast when announcing the package at the previous spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted: “Upon closer inspection the promise of £39bn over 10 years is less generous than on first appearance…The small print suggests spending of about £3bn a year over the next three years, which is not a million miles away from what is currently spent on the AHP”— affordable homes programme— “This is why enormous-sounding numbers should always merit further scrutiny”. The Government are also failing on making social and affordable homes available. Figures show that, with the lowest number of additional homes for nearly a decade, the Government are on track to fall well short of the target of 1.5 million additional homes in this Parliament, possibly not even reaching 1 million. That is considerably worse than the 2.5 million new homes delivered by the previous Government, including 1 million in the previous Parliament, of which 750,000 were affordable homes. That was despite having to grapple with the pandemic for the better part of two years. In conclusion, it is clear that Ministers must work more quickly and effectively to provide local authorities and charities with the strategy and direction they need. It is vital to move at a greater pace to ease the temporary accommodation crisis, get more social and affordable homes built in the most affected areas, and finally publish the homelessness strategy first promised in July 2024 but repeatedly delayed to the detriment of those relying on it to work. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?
This Budget is entitled “Strong foundations, secure future”; sadly, it is anything but, with weak foundations and an insecure future. For all this talk of fair decisions, this Budget’s biggest scandal is that my constituents are not being given a fair deal in any way whatsoever. My constituents, like those of Members across the House, who work hard to support themselves and their families and who innovate and start businesses that provide jobs, have been deeply let down by this Budget and Labour’s previous Budget. My constituents and people right across the country will pay more while being deprived of investment in the services they need due to this Government’s political decisions. My constituents, and those of the Health Secretary himself, were promised by Labour a full rebuild of Whipps Cross hospital, as started by the previous Conservative Government. The health secretary went as far as to say that he supported the “Whipps Won’t Wait” campaign before the election, but as soon as his Government were elected he changed his tune to “Whipps Must Wait”. As a result, Whipps Cross now faces a £170 million backlog of maintenance costs due to the Government’s delay. This rebuild and that of Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow—again promised by Labour—are needed by my constituents now. Folk in Epping Forest have some words for the Transport Secretary. The Central line is consistently delayed, overcrowded, and over-hot in summer, with screeching rail noise. The trains are in need of modernisation, and all this is compounded by horrendous graffiti like something out of Gotham City, which is getting worse day by day. Could the Transport Secretary have a word with the Mayor of London about investment in the Central line and deterrents for graffiti? All those decisions come on top of choices that the Government had already inflicted before last week, none of which they have reversed with this Budget. The Government’s plan to jeopardise the heart and lungs of Epping Forest—its precious green belt—under the misleadingly termed “grey belt” is completely at odds with our constituency’s environment and natural beauty. We need the right homes in the right places, but we cannot have this top-down approach. The rise in national insurance contributions in last year’s Budget means that businesses in Epping Forest face a dilemma: stop hiring new staff or freeze pay for existing staff. That cannot go on. While the Government choose to be ambiguous when it comes to spending, it is very clear where they can make savings. They could save £1.8 billion by cancelling their flawed policy on digital ID, or they could save £35 billion on their flawed Chagos islands policy. Labour is also now waging a war on motorists by hiking fuel duty and disincentivising electric and plug-in hybrid car drivers with a mileage charge. That is not sustainable moving forward. We have seen political choices from a desperate Labour Government. It is sad that they have completely disregarded Conservative plans that would help our economy, such as scrapping stamp duty and abolishing business rates for retail, hospitality or leisure businesses. The people of Epping Forest and the UK deserve better than the retrograde decisions made by this Labour Government. We need to push back against this high-tax, low-delivery Budget.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we consider the clause and new clause 2, I want to be clear that the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill’s overarching aims. Candour, transparency, frankness and, above all, the requirement that public officials act in the public interest are principles that I am sure Members from all parties support. As we commented on during evidence sessions about the chief coroner, it would be quite wrong to portray good-faith efforts to ensure that we give due consideration to each and every possible implication of the Bill as in any way not giving due regard to its noble aims, in particular the considerable effort and good intentions of the many campaigners supporting it, including the ones we heard from during the evidence sessions. As the Minister commented, I do not think that anyone could have been anything but deeply moved and reflective on hearing the experiences that the witnesses went through in such appalling circumstances. They were a limited group, but one made up not just of those affected by Hillsborough but those affected by many other scandals in which the state and its bodies covered up and mistreated people. Ultimately, even if we believe that the Bill could be improved, and we will hold the Government to account for any unintended consequences, we support the Bill and do not expect to oppose it on Third Reading. I hope that that is an important message for the campaigners supporting it. However, we want to probe the Government’s thinking and suggest possible improvements. Before we come to the specifics of our new clause, I will comment on clause 1 as a whole, as it lays out the core purpose of the Bill and highlights just how far the political class as a whole has to come in delivering candour, and how contentious these matters can be. In the very weeks we have been considering this Bill, with the Government professing to want to drive further improvements in the candour and frankness of accountability, we have been having a heated and highly contested public debate about what constitutes candour and frankness. I raise that debate not to further discuss it in Committee—it would not be appropriate to engage in it for its merits—but just to highlight exactly how contentious such things are. We have a Chancellor who, in my view, has clearly failed to operate with candour and frankness, but I am sure that view is fiercely opposed by other members of the Committee.
As I said, that is an example. I am not wishing to make the point—[Interruption.] I have said quite clearly that you will disagree with me on that, but that is the point that I am making.
Thank you, Sir Roger. Committee members have been fiercely disagreeing on something that relates directly to the matters that we are considering today on frankness and candour. I think that demonstrates just how challenging these things will be. We are the politicians who are putting forward this legislation.
Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.
Thank you for that further clarification, Sir Roger. These issues are absolutely live and happening all the time—this week alone, we have seen examples of it—and we need to understand the implications of the Bill. I am far from alone in recognising the difficulty in defining terms such as “candour” and “public interest”. John Coggon, professor of law at the University of Bristol law school, writes: “The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling.” Anyone who has spent any time inside a public body—a police force, a regulator or a Government Department—knows that the public interest can mean very different things to different people. It is shaped by context, role, circumstance and sometimes professional norms. What one official believes to be in the public interest, a Minister, senior civil servant or statutory body might see very differently. That is not mere theory; it is the daily reality of modern governance. Questions were raised during the evidence sessions about how the public interest might be used inappropriately in defence of an allegation of misconduct in public office. As new clause 2 points to, paragraph 1(8)(b) of schedule 1 specifically allows for the withholding of information in the public interest. Failing in that area could lead to both those we would wish not to be prosecuted being prosecuted and those we want to see prosecuted escaping justice. It is an important area of how the Bill will operate. I am not so ambitious as to suggest that through the Bill the Committee will be able to create a perfect definition of public interest, but I speak in support of the new clause in an attempt to ensure that the Government recognise that they need to properly engage with that issue if the Bill is to be successful. A definition of the public interest need not be exhaustive, as I have said, but the wide-ranging ramifications of the Bill place an onus on the Government to ensure that the frontline civil servant of any kind has somewhere to look and turn to when wrestling with these matters—a starting point that might help them to structure their thinking and make decisions. By failing to define the term at all, even in the most basic way, the Bill risks giving us a duty that is challenging to operate for a junior civil servant. It risks more uncertainty about compliance, inconsistency between institutions and even potential litigation where prosecutors or courts are left to decide after the fact what Parliament must have meant. The obvious challenging scenario is when officials need to consider situations where there are competing public interests—national security versus transparency, value for money versus speed of delivery, or personal privacy versus public accountability. Without more assistance for thinking those matters through, how does an official protect themselves from the—possibly criminal—allegation that their judgment call was not in the public interest among competing interests? The new clause does not attempt to dictate exactly what public interest must mean; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a structure or framework in regulations, subject to approval by both Houses. Ultimately, if this legislation is to achieve the cultural change that the Government claim it will, the foundations must be clear and easy to understand. Public officials should not be left purely guessing what Parliament might have meant, or how we expected them to weigh these issues—Parliament should tell them. New clause 2 offers the Government the opportunity to do exactly that, and I hope they will take it.
The Minister rightly describes how tightly the courts consider these matters in detail. As the Bill puts a whole range of very junior civil servants in the firing line, does she at least accept that guidance or materials might be helpful to assist a broader audience in how they approach these issues in their day-to-day work?
I emphasise that we need clarity on this. Those of us who were able to attend the meeting with the intelligence services will know that they seemed to provide quite a clear account of their individual personal responsibility and all the ways in which they thought the Bill would affect them. That was quite clearly contradicted in our evidence from other witnesses. I am grateful to the Minister for sending round a further note to Committee members this morning, and for our brief chat ahead of this sitting. Even that note raises further contradictions, however, because it says, and I quote, that “the individual public officials working for the UK intelligence services are capable of being caught by the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour”. It lists some other ones, but it includes the duty of candour. Further down, it says, “the Bill specifies that the duty of candour and assistance can only be addressed to public authorities and not individual public officials”. The Minister was able to give me a brief, informal explanation of that, but I do think this is extremely important. It may be that people are happy for the security services to be excluded to a certain extent, but we have to vote on a shared understanding of what exactly the Bill does in relation to them as entire organisations, as well as to the people who work for them and those who are in charge. I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
I beg to move amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 30, at end insert— “(1A) Inquiries under subsection (1) include those designated by the Secretary of State as local inquiries into grooming gangs.” This amendment would apply the Duty of Candour to the five local grooming gangs’ inquiries announced by the Government and any further ones established.
I rise to speak to amendment 3, and I also welcome the intention behind amendment 1. Amendment 3 relates to the scope of the duty of candour as it applies to non-statutory inquiries. Members will know that the Bill does not just impose a duty of candour on public bodies in major statutory inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005; it allows Ministers to apply that same duty to non-statutory inquiries—or inquiries that, for various sensible reasons, may not require the full statutory machinery but none the less investigate matters of profound public concern. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out the conditions under which a non-statutory inquiry may fall within the Bill: it must be initiated by a Minister; it must be intended to produce a published report; and the Minister must certify that the events in question have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. That is a broadly drawn but important framework. However, there is a real risk that some of the most sensitive, complex and deeply distressing inquiries currently being established will fall entirely outside this regime. I refer specifically to the local grooming gangs inquiries announced by the Government. These inquiries were promised to victims, survivors and affected communities as part of the commitment to shine a light on failures by public agencies over many decades to protect vulnerable children. They will be examining events that could not be more clearly connected to public concern and public confidence. Unless they are expressly captured by the Bill, however, the public bodies involved will not necessarily be subject to the statutory duty of candour that the Bill intends to deliver; it will be left to the whims of the Government of the day. Given the chequered history of this Administration, that is not a position that we would want to be left in, and it is not a position that many victims would want to be left in. The amendment is therefore designed to remove any doubt by making it clear that the non-statutory inquiries designated by the Secretary of State as local grooming gang inquiries fall squarely within paragraph 2. It is a simply, clarifying amendment that protects victims, the integrity of the process and the public from the possibility of these inquiries falling into a grey area. It is worth reminding the Committee why this matters. Across multiple towns and cities, victims were failed because agencies did not share information, confront uncomfortable truths and, in some cases, tell the public the full story. A duty of candour is not a mere formality in this context; it is an essential means by which we ensure that the same patterns of silence, defensiveness and institutional self-protection do not re-emerge. If the Bill’s purpose is to raise standards in public life, to restore trust and to ensure openness in the face of institutional wrongdoing, surely these inquires—the very ones where a failure of candour has had the most devastating impacts—must be included explicitly. The Government may well argue that the wording already allows these inquiries to be covered. If that is the case, there is no harm in making it clear. If it is not the case, there is every reason for us to fix that today. This amendment is not partisan. We heard from Mayor Burnham about his direct experience of a local grooming gang inquiry that lacked a duty of candour, and how he felt the inquiry would have benefited enormously from one. He supported our amendment to ensure that all other local inquiries would be subject to such a duty once the Bill became law. The timing may not be perfect, but given the speed with which the Government seek to proceed with the Bill, and the positive impact it could have even now if public officials knew that this was incoming, I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose the measure. It is straightforward and would ensure that when victims and survivors are told that lessons will be learned, we will do everything possible to guarantee that that is done honestly, fully and transparently by ensuring that inquiries have all the information they need. Amendment 1—I believe this was touched on earlier, in relation to panels and what will fully constitute inclusion in the Bill—is helpful to ensure that when a Minister commissions one of these important panels, it is not simply left to them to decide whether it suits them to include the duty of candour. I therefore welcome that amendment.
On amendment 1, I accept the Government’s intention to clarify further how these things will operate. On panels and non-statutory inquiries, although there is sometimes in Government a resistance to public inquiries for the wrong reasons, sometimes it is because they are expensive and time-consuming. The real opportunity for applying the duty of candour more widely is that if we can ensure that non-public inquiries get all the information they need, they are much more likely to be successful, thereby avoiding a future public inquiry with all the associated costs that lawyers make a huge amount of money from. On amendment 3, although the Minister outlined the future public inquiry, the local inquiries have not been cancelled. There is clearly a view that they must also proceed. I cannot see any reason why we would not want them to proceed on the basis that they are subject to the duty of candour.
On that basis, the Minister should not have any objection to the amendment, because it would confirm that position more explicitly. We will therefore push it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister. Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.
Another example of what we have been discussing this morning is Primodos and drug companies. Does the Minister expect drug companies to be captured as well?