debates/debates2025-07-02c conversation_6
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-02c conversation_6

Natasha Irons:Unlike the Conservatives, this Government have not dragged their feet in banning zombie knives and ninja-style swords in their effort to tackle knife crime. In Croydon, where youth violence has cast a devastating shadow across our communities, our local police are running a surrender scheme this month to take those dangerous weapons off our streets. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the tireless work of Croydon’s police officers, and will he outline what his Government are doing to ensure that the Met police have the resources they need both to protect neighbourhood policing and to deal with the unique challenges they face? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is right to speak of the importance of banning these despicable weapons. I know how much she cares about this issue. The ban on zombie knives and machetes came into effect last year, and the ban on ninja swords will come into effect this August. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties for illegal sales and will give the police new powers to seize knives. What did the Conservatives do when we put that Bill before the House to take those measures? They voted against it. Knife crime soared on their watch, and they have clearly learnt absolutely nothing. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats. \p Edward Davey: Yesterday, the Government were asking the House to vote for a law that would mean that someone with a condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis would qualify for a personal independence payment today, but someone diagnosed with the same condition, with the very same symptoms, in a few months’ time would not. We all know that the cost of welfare needs to come down, but that was not a fair way to do it. Until he lost control yesterday, the Prime Minister was arguing for that approach. Has he changed his mind on this, or not? \p Keir Starmer: The Stephen Timms review—a very important review—will look into this issue, but what we did do last night was end mandatory reassessments for those with severe disabilities. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his party cared about things like that. It is the right thing to do, and they voted against it. We have rebalanced universal credit, which is long overdue. I think he believes that, but what did he do last night? He voted against it. We set out a pathway to  reform personal independence payment, which is something he argues for every week, and what did he do when he had the chance? He voted against it. \p Edward Davey: The House and Labour Back Benchers will note that the Prime Minister did not answer my question. Moreover, if he looked at our proposals for welfare reform to cut down the bill, he would not be in the mess that he is in.

Moving on, from Hillsborough to Grenfell, from Primodos to Horizon, and from the contaminated blood scandal to nuclear test veterans, the bereaved and survivors of some of our country’s most appalling scandals have come together to call for a legal duty of candour, and for the secondary duty needed to make it practical and effective for investigations and inquiries. They are now frightened that the Government are watering down these proposals to such an extent that they would be toothless. After months of delay, can the Prime Minister reassure campaigners that his Hillsborough law will include a real legal duty of candour, as he promised? \p Keir Starmer: Yes, it will. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, I have known some of the Hillsborough families for many years—I met them over a decade ago—and know exactly what they have been through. Various other groups have suffered similar injustices with similar follow-up, which is an additional injustice on top of the original injustice. That is why we will bring forward a Hillsborough law—it is a commitment I have made. I have been talking to the families myself in recent weeks to make sure that we get this right. It is important that we get it right, but it will have a legal duty of candour.