Budget Resolutions
Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way to you, Mr Hoare, and the rest of us want to hear what he has to say.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Order. Before I come to the next motion, I have been informed that certain Members are taking photographs in the Lobby while we are in session. Members know that taking photographs is strictly prohibited. The Members names have been given to me. I expect them to come and apologise before the evening is out. If any of those photos is published, there will be severe repercussions. 51. Inheritance tax (pension interests) Question put, That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year about the charging of inheritance tax by reference to benefits payable under a pension scheme on the death of a member of the scheme.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his putting this point on the record. I am not sure that it is a sin, or whether he will be absolved of it, but it has been noted.
- Hansard source
Gambling: Regulatory Reform
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today. Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country. Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear. The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent. The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies. The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes. We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics. From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand. The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans. Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging. That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks. In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters. We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast. There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy. The industry has spent the past three years implementing more than 60 measures from the gambling White Paper. The statutory levy, introduced in April this year, is one of the most significant and most costly. Operators have now made their first payments under the mandatory system, totalling more than £100 million, but there is still no clarity about how charities such as Gordon Moody, GamCare, Betknowmore UK and others that do fantastic work in the treatment and prevention space can actually access any of that. We have warned the Government about that, privately and publicly, for many months. That is why we did not feel that we could support the gambling levy legislation as drafted. To date, only UK Research and Innovation has published basic guidance. Organisations that were promised long-term certainty have no idea how, when or even if they will be able to bid for levy funds to continue their vital work. Frontline charities supporting people suffering from gambling harms tell us that they cannot plan ahead, cannot recruit or even retain staff, and in some cases cannot continue services at all because the system remains so opaque. Before the Government bring down another wave of major reforms, impose the most aggressive tax rises in Europe, and throw operators and charities into further uncertainty, should they not first ensure that the levy is actually up and running properly? Should they not ensure that charities with experts who have decades of experience are not forced to close because of the ongoing ideological madness in Westminster, which has stacked the deck against those with more pragmatic views about gambling and how we prevent harms? It makes no sense—literally none—to introduce new burdens when the existing regulatory framework is still incomplete and not functioning as the Government promised. Perhaps if the Minister could get his ministerial colleagues to properly engage with anybody in the sector, the Government might have a clue about what is happening: they are gambling with lives. Protecting consumers means keeping them in the regulated domestic market if they choose to gamble: that is a very simple truth. I am all in favour of bashing the bookies—it is a long-established British tradition—but I want it to be done by the punter, not by this anti-fun Labour Government. Hon. Members should already know that British operators, although not perfect, prevent the use of credit cards, enforce 18-plus age verification, operate GamStop self-exclusion, display prominent safer gambling messages, use data to identify markers of harm, adhere to the strict advertising rules that are in place, and provide stable funding for research, education and treatment. The unregulated market that the Government are fuelling to the tune of £6 billion in extra stakes does none of that. Once someone has moved into that unregulated environment, there is no longer any meaningful ability to protect them from gambling harms. Will the Minister personally review the commissioning of prevention and treatment to ensure that it is being managed fairly and that charities are not being deliberately excluded? Will he commit to a formal review, across the House, of affordability checks and of the pilot that has been extended by the Gambling Commission? Does he believe that the £26 million of funding given to the Gambling Commission is sufficient to stop the growth of the black market? Lastly, what message does he have for the thousands of employees at risk of losing their jobs this Christmas because of Labour’s tax raid?
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
In the event that a volunteer magistrate makes a mistake and jails someone for two years, that person’s automatic right to a rehearing will have been removed. Can the Justice Secretary confirm whether he believes this is efficiency, or just easier wrongful imprisonment?
- Hansard source
Cyber-attacks: Global Response
The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
- Hansard source
Angiolini Inquiry
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House to speak to the incredibly disturbing and damaging issues outlined in today’s report. Over four years ago, the reprehensible abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard shocked us all. It forced the police to confront their failure to remove Wayne Couzens as a police officer. The crime was vile and abhorrent, extinguishing the life of an incredible young lady in the most awful way. We should never forget the impact of this crime, with Sarah’s mother describing the final hours of her life as a constant torment to the family. I know that Sarah, her family and her friends remain in the thoughts of the whole House and people across the country today. This incident underlines our responsibility to confront not only the problems outlined in this case, but to go beyond any single evil person and tackle challenges in our police and society more widely. Sarah’s murder had a profound effect on women. As the report outlines, women changed their travel plans, their routines and their lives out of fear for their safety. I am sure the whole House will agree that that is simply not acceptable. This reflection is critical. We will always support the police and have advocated the need to give them the powers required to tackle crime in our society. However, that support is predicated on a deep responsibility that extends beyond the responsibilities to which many in our society are bound. As the code of practice for ethical policing notes: “Effective policing is built on public trust and confidence. This depends on a policing profession that is ethical and professional in the way that it respects, listens, responds, improves and serves the public.” As the Minister will be aware, the terms of reference for part 2 were set and published in May 2023 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). The scope appropriately asked the Government to cover the three broad areas set out by the Minister today: recruitment and vetting; police culture and standards; and the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces. The report highlights our responsibility to ensure that women and girls feel safe in public spaces, where there is clearly a significant gap today. The Minister, in her role, rightly mentions some of the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls. In that spirit, I recognise the important steps taken by the previous Government, which brought forward Operation Soteria, a programme highlighted by Lady Elish in her statement this morning, which sought to radically transform the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate rape, and which I understand the Government are implementing the principles of in training. This was among a range of other measures set out when the first part was published, but as was acknowledged we need to go much, much further. Therefore, I hope the Minister can follow through on what she outlined today and ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy is published, having been delayed over the past year. The Minister’s statement does not mention the use of data, a point the report suggests is lacking. Can she provide assurances that the Government, in the strategy, will have a comprehensive plan for implementing better data recording, encompassing and publishing a wider array of data pertaining to violence against women and girls? As shadow Policing Minister, I would also reflect on what we can do at speed to instil trust within the public that the police will tackle this problem. The dreadful murder of Sarah Everard did huge damage to public trust in the police, especially among young women. In particular, I refer to the proposals around officer vetting and conduct, which I expect to be raised in the second half of the report. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons that the Minister and I can both acknowledge, the measures to bring forward changes to our vetting and dismissal procedures have not been implemented at sufficient speed. Will the Minister therefore discuss with her ministerial colleagues the need to implement the changes swiftly once the legislation is passed? The inquiry report demonstrates the necessity of tackling violence against women and girls in our public spaces. Unfortunately, we know that there are survivors of grooming gangs who were failed by the police and local authorities, often in plain sight. I therefore implore the Minister to provide answers about the terms of reference and timings of the grooming gangs inquiry, and to ensure that there is justice for all those affected by these heinous crimes. Additionally, I ask the Minister about her level of confidence in implementing the recommendations set out in Lady Elish Angiolini’s report today. As Lady Elish rightly highlighted, this is a “whole-society” issue that requires a whole-society response. The Minister has herself highlighted some of the challenges in achieving cross-Government responses to the violence against women and girls strategy. I hope that she will now be able to drive forward the change needed to protect women and girls.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
Order. To accommodate all those who wish to speak, I ask Members to impose on themselves a four-minute limit.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
I am afraid that that was not a good example of a four-minute speech. Jim Shannon will show us how it should be done.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
We have three remaining speakers and 10 minutes, so you have about three minutes each.
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
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?
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
Ah! Like Hercule Poirot!
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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?
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
China: Threat to UK Interests
8. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.
- Hansard source
China: Threat 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?
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Women and Girls: Isle of Wight
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.
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
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?
- Hansard source
China: Threat to UK Interests
15. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.
- Hansard source
China: Threat 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?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
It makes it worse.
- Hansard source
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
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.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
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?
- Hansard source
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
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.
- Hansard source
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
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—
- Hansard source
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
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.
- Hansard source
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
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.
- Hansard source
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
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?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
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.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
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.