Sarah Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members for their brief but excellent contributions. On how we will work with DSIT and continue to improve experimentation on animals to make sure that we always push the standards we need to push, there is a whole package of work in the £75 million plan we have announced that will take us further and faster. Many colleagues across the House have campaigned for something called Herbie’s law, and measures in our reforms include timebound action plans, progress reporting and public expert advisory committees. There is a whole programme of work, but the three Rs—replacement, refinement and reduction—bind together everything we do in respect of animal testing. We cannot use animals in research unless we absolutely have to. As the research and technology improve, we will use animals less. We have to use the minimum number of animals through the reduction process, and we have to use the experiments that cause the least harm through the refinement programme. The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about ASPA; we have set up a cross-departmental ministerial team to deliver the strategy, led by my colleague Lord Hanson, with Lord Vallance and with Baroness Hayman from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that reassures Members and, once again, commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to .

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Following EU exit, the Government have been reviewing retained EU law to ensure that it functions clearly and effectively within the UK domestic framework. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The regulations were laid on 25 March 2026 using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The regulations make technical amendments to retained EU legislation relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. They preserve existing animal protection safeguards, responsibilities and enforcement powers within a clear UK legislative framework, and assure transparency of operation. They do not create new permissions for animal testing, nor do they reduce the rigorous standards that establishments and individuals licensed to use animals for scientific purposes must meet. The UK operates one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, founded on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that framework, animals may be used only when there is no viable alternative, with the number of animals used kept to the minimum necessary and with methods refined to reduce suffering. Those requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, inspection, audit and enforcement by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit. Alongside the primary legislation, animal welfare standards are supported by the code of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence. The regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework, so that the same high standards continue to apply. The use of animals in science attracts significant public interest, and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision in which animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. That is why, in November 2025, we published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, backed by £75 million of investment to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. It includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, to create a preclinical translational models’ hub, and to expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods. At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system. That is exactly what the regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when truly necessary. The regulations provide legal clarity, following EU exit, to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  On past charging, we are offering repayments. We think the cost of those repayments will be about £3,000 in total. It is quite a small amount, but we are making that available to people. Question put and agreed to. DRAFT CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL) (CO-OPERATION) ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members for their comments, for agreeing with the legislation and for making some helpful points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, is right to say that we must make sure that the list is as current as it can be. He is also right that with all the new synthetic drugs that are sadly becoming more prevalent in this country, we must make sure that we are absolutely on top of their use, which is where the draft regulations will apply. The shadow Minister mentioned the EU and Northern Ireland, and the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will remove regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the same DPCs will now be controlled in both, as I hope he will recognise. The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, both asked why it has taken so many years to get to this point. I wrote in some detail to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in March, and I am happy to provide colleagues with a copy of that letter. Obviously I cannot comment on decisions made by previous Ministers, but we have been working to rectify this matter since the general election. The perm sec is taking responsibility for making sure that we have the right logs in place in the Home Office, so that where legislation needs to be updated over time, we are completely aligned with that and alive to it. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills suggested that we have taken our time since the election, but we have worked through these things as quickly as we can. We previously introduced generic controls on nitazenes, which was incredibly important, and we are working through these things as fast as we can. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members. I am very happy to provide my letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee if members of this Committee would like it, but I think I have covered all the issues that have been raised. I acknowledge those issues and hope that hon. Members will support these two very important pieces of legislation.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft regulations and the draft order, which were both laid before Parliament on 26 February, will address the harms caused by illegal drugs, which do terrible damage to health and to communities. Acquisitive crime and 50% of homicides are linked to drugs, and drug deaths reached 3,500 in 2024. Although many drug precursor chemicals have legitimate industrial uses, they are also used to make illegal drugs. We therefore control DPCs in two ways. The first, which the draft regulations are concerned with, seeks to reduce the risk of DPCs that are used legitimately in industry being diverted to producing illicit drugs. The second, which the draft order is concerned with, is through measures to tackle the deliberate illicit use of DPCs to produce drugs. I turn first to the draft regulations. Companies must generally obtain licences or other authorisations to use DPCs. In most cases, they must maintain proper records of consignments, and they must always notify the National Crime Agency where they suspect diversion of DPCs for illicit use. Before Brexit, those requirements were set by the EU; since Brexit, EU rules have continued to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework, while a similar regime operates in Great Britain as assimilated law. The draft regulations will amend deficiencies in that assimilated law. For example, Ministers lack effective powers to control new DPCs in Great Britain, so no new chemicals have been controlled there since January 2021. The EU has added 10 DPCs and 14 related substances since then; those controls apply in Northern Ireland, but not in Great Britain. The substances are used to manufacture MDMA—commonly known as ecstasy—and fentanyl, amphetamine and methamphetamine. All of them, except amphetamine, are class A drugs. The draft regulations will therefore ensure that the requirements on companies that make legitimate use of DPCs in Great Britain apply to those 10 DPCs and the related substances. They will also provide powers to control additional substances in Great Britain in future. The draft regulations will also provide a statutory mechanism to control movements of DPCs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such controls help to prevent diversion of DPCs and ensure that we meet our international obligations. We will not require companies to pay fees to do so, however; this is to ensure that there are no unnecessary impediments to free trade within this country. Lastly, although companies are already required to keep records and report concerns in respect of a wide range of chemicals, the criminal penalties for failing to do so cover a smaller group of substances. The draft regulations will ensure that the rules and the penalties relating to documentation and reporting apply to all chemicals that are controlled under the regulations. I turn to the draft order, which will add 12 DPCs and 16 related substances to the list of substances that it is a crime to supply or make if the defendant knows or suspects that they will be used to make controlled drugs. As I say, those DPCs are also used to produce ecstasy, fentanyl, amphetamine or methamphetamine. The UN controlled those substances between March 2014 and March 2024. The legislation should have been updated sooner; I have written to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to address its concerns about the causes of the delay. I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft regulations, which corrects two minor typographical errors. First, a reference to “United Kingdom” has now been changed to “the United Kingdom”. Secondly, the original draft referred to the “third place” the phrase “countries of destination” appeared in the text; it should have read “second place”, as there was no third. I commend the draft regulations and the draft order to the Committee as instruments that will provide the Government with further means to tackle the illicit drugs that cause harm to so many.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026 Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Controlled Drugs (Drug Precursors) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is with regret that we return to the Lords amendments to this Bill. The elected House has made its views crystal clear on the issues before us. We have already voted twice, by substantial margins, to reject the Lords amendments. It is time for the considered views of this House to prevail. Let me deal briefly with the two remaining issues before us. In our earlier debates, I have been clear that the Government agree that the enforcement of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices must be proportionate. Fixed penalty notices must never simply be seen as a money spinner for enforcement agencies, but as an appropriate and proportionate means of tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. We will make this distinction absolutely clear in our statutory guidance. To this end, we have already agreed amendments to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must address the proportionate use of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. I know the Liberal Democrats want early action on this, so we have brought forward a further amendment to provide that such guidance must be issued within six months of Royal Assent. It is particularly regrettable that the Opposition have returned yet again to Lords amendment 359, albeit in modified form. The amendment is simply unworkable, and it is wholly contrary to the approach taken by successive Governments to the exercise of the powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe terrorist organisations. There is no more important duty on the Government than to safeguard this country from terrorist attack, but requiring the Government to in effect give a running commentary on whether any organisation linked to the Iranian armed forces should be proscribed does not for one moment add to our security. Their lordships can keep insisting on this amendment, but our response will be the same. This is not an amendment that any responsible Government can or should entertain.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  None of us would say for one second that we are anything other than appalled by what we see happening in Iran. None of us supports the Iranian Government and none of us supports the IRGC. We have sanctioned over 550 individuals and organisations, including the IRGC, to prevent them from coming here and to take their assets where we can do so. The point is that this Parliament is not the place for a Government to say one way or the other what they are going to proscribe or not proscribe. That is not the way government is done in this country, and it is not the way we are going to operate now. However, I get the hon. Gentleman’s point for sure. None of us supports the IRGC or anything it does, and we are appalled by the very significant, awful number of deaths we have seen in recent times and, indeed, over many years. In conclusion, we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill. We have already rejected the Lords amendments on two occasions, with majorities of well over 100. Let us send these amendments back to the Lords, hopefully for one last time.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that we are here debating this Bill for the last time. I know that Government Members earnestly want to see the Bill enacted so that we can deliver safer streets for all our communities. I thank the Liberal Democrats for not pushing their amendments to a vote on this occasion. On the issue of the IRGC, I have been clear that no responsible Government who put the safety and security of the country first can give a running commentary on whether or not this organisation will be proscribed, and it is time to close down this debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) was absolutely right to mention the Jewish community; we are all deeply concerned by what we have seen happen to our Jewish friends and colleagues across the country in recent days, particularly in London. We are doing all we can to ensure that our Jewish community is kept safe. As the hon. Lady will know, we are investing to ensure that we have protections for synagogues and other Jewish spaces where we need it, and we are working with them to do everything that we can. The hon. Lady is right on that matter—I agree with her on it. However, as to the question of whether the Government can be told in this place that we must immediately proscribe an organisation—that is not the way that this Government work. It is not the way that any Government have worked. I respectfully suggest to the other place and to Members in this place that the time has come to call it a day and to let this Bill pass. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 2H and 2J, but proposes in lieu of those amendments amendment (a) to their amendment 2F and amendment (b) to their amendment 2G. After Clause 190 Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its amendments 439C and 439D and disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 439E and 439F in lieu.— (Sarah Jones.)

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the interests of transparency, Madam Deputy Speaker, my glasses are reading glasses, but they also happen to be sunglasses. I will try not to put them on, but my eyes are beginning to go. I do not want to pretend to the House that I am trying to be cool if I put on my glasses; it is just so that I can read the words in front of me. I want to start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this short but very interesting debate on a wide variety of issues. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We all thank the Harlow Wombles for the work they do. I do not think we have Croydon Wombles, but we probably need to get some. We do, however, have many very good people who go out and collect rubbish, like my hon. Friend in Harlow. All three Back-Bench speeches showed the strength of commitment from our 2024 intake in this place. They are debating the issues that matter to local people and which are important. The Government are already taking action on all fronts, and the Bill will help us to tackle the scourges of everyday crime that my hon. Friends touched on. Turning to the four issues before us today, I am disappointed, coming first to fixed penalty notices, that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is not persuaded. Lords amendments 2D and 2E amended the Government’s amendment that allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance addressing the issue of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The amendments specify that the guidance must, rather than may, address that point. The Government have had many conversations on that, both with our colleagues in the Lords and in this place, and I hope those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench recognise that engagement. We believe that a provision for private companies to collect and support the Government and local government in their public spaces protection orders and other such measures is fundamentally important to ensure that people abide by the rules of the land. The Government brought forward an amendment in lieu to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must, as opposed to may, address the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons, so I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would recognise that that is going some distance and I am disappointed that they have not on this occasion. We have had many debates on fly-tipping in this place, and we inherited from the Conservatives a shocking situation where it was not seen to be the serious crime that it is. As a consequence, many of our communities are blighted by it, and my hon. Friends have talked about it in this debate. I am disappointed that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) continues to argue for Lords amendment 11. I hope he accepts that the police are not the lead agency for enforcing all criminal offences. They work in partnership with the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, the Environment Agency, the Gambling Commission and many others, including local councils in their guise as waste authorities. The police do have the powers to remove a vehicle. In fact, when I was out with the police in Kent only last week, we seized a vehicle because a crime was being committed. Four young men were in a car that was not properly insured, so the men had to get out of the car and we took it away. We were very glad to do so, although the men were not very pleased. It is within the police’s power to stop a car if a criminal offence is occurring and to take that car away.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect, as my hon. Friend says, that there will be a lot more than were seized under the previous Government. This Government encourage our police and local authorities to investigate any crime, and to ensure proper punishment. That is why we are introducing this very substantial piece of legislation, which also increases the punishment for a whole raft of criminal activities. Many people are profiting from fly-tipping and making it their business; perhaps they are doing a house clearance, and want to avoid paying fees to get rid of the furniture, so they just dump it on our streets. It is right that we encourage our local authorities to ensure that those people are punished, and that, where necessary, we crush their vans, rather than just taking them away, so that they can never be used by those people again. That is what we are keen to do. That is why my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet have prioritised tackling fly-tipping in all its forms, from very small to very large cases. We have organised criminal gangs fly-tipping across the country, leading to vast fly-tips; this Government will fund their removal, through the legislation we are bringing in. I move on to youth diversion orders. Again, I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats do not feel that they can support our further amendments in lieu. We have further strengthened the provisions in the Bill in respect of statutory guidance, which must now expressly address the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for chief officers to consult persons other than youth offending teams before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order. This squarely addresses the concerns raised in the other place. We do not feel that we need to go as far as the other place suggests. I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have not listened to us today, and that they feel it necessary to continue to push the issue. Returning to the fourth issue that we are debating today—the proscription of the IRGC—it is a long-standing principle, adopted by successive Administrations, that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. It would violate that principle if we mandated the Government to review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations. The shadow Minister knows that that is the case. The Government cannot support Lords amendments 359 and 439.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, because we are rushed for time.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 2D and 2E but proposes in lieu of those amendments Amendment (a) to its Amendment 2B and Amendment (b) to its Amendment 2C.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place. Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House last week—of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As for those four, we have again listened carefully to the points raised in the Lords and tabled further amendments in lieu. Let me turn first to amendments 2D and 2E on fining for profit, tabled by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to those concerns, and hon. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments making clear that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 may, among other things, address the issue of the proportionate issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons for breaches of community protection notices and public space protection orders. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson in the other place said that discretion to issue such guidance was not good enough, and that there should be a duty to do so. The amendment in lieu now provides for just such a duty. I hope this will persuade hon. Members that the Government are committed to addressing this issue. Turning to the question of fly-tipping, the Government again recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Our recent waste crime action plan has set out our zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean-up effort. On the specific issue of vehicle seizure powers, I want to be clear that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. However, to further support local authorities, we have tabled an amendment in lieu that makes clear what the statutory guidance on fly-tipping should cover. For example, it must include advice on collecting strong evidence against the offender that can help to secure a successful conviction and advice on what action can be taken, including the seizure of vehicles. Local authorities are the lead agency for tackling fly-tipping, and it is right that they lead on enforcement, so the power to seize and dispose of vehicles used in fly-tipping properly rests with them. The police already have general powers of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item is evidence in relation to an offence. That power can be used to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping. Where the police seize a vehicle, they would be expected to liaise with the local authority, which would then take action to dispose of that vehicle. As such, Lords amendment 11 seeks to close a gap in the law that, in practice, just does not exist. I turn next to youth diversion orders. We were disappointed by the Lords’ decision last week to reject the Government’s amendment in lieu, which was tabled in response to Baroness Doocey’s amendment 342. Baroness Doocey raised concerns regarding the lack of a requirement for police to consult organisations beyond criminal justice services, flagging that this missed an opportunity to legislate for consultation with other agencies such as health, education and social services. We respectfully disagree with Baroness Doocey that her amendment would directly respond to the recommendations made by Sir Adrian Fulford in his recent report on the horrific Southport attack. Multi-agency engagement will be critical to the success of these orders, which is why the Bill already includes a duty on the police to consult youth justice services. In England and Wales, this will be through local youth offending teams, which are multi-agency in nature—they include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as is underpinned in statute by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They may also extend beyond those mandated agencies to include child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services. We are therefore confident that youth diversion order applications will be made following consultation with a wide variety of agencies, and will benefit from the expertise of those agencies in working with young people. Baroness Doocey also raised concerns regarding the police’s consideration of alternative interventions. The statutory guidance, which will be developed by the Home Office and laid before Parliament for scrutiny ahead of publication, will include guidance on alternative interventions that police may wish to consider instead of, or alongside, a youth diversion order.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in one moment. If someone is caught using a vehicle to fly-tip, we can, as a result of this legislation, add up to nine points to their licence, which is surely a really powerful disincentive against fly-tipping. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he did not bring this in, when he was in government.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are now. The time has come for the will of the elected House to prevail. We have listened and responded positively to the great majority of amendments put forward by the House of Lords. We should send these amendments back in the hope, and indeed the expectation, that it will be for the last time. We have been debating the Bill for long enough—14 months—so it is time to stop talking. It is time to deliver the changes wrought by the Bill to protect all our communities. Question put.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to fly-tipping, if a crime is being committed, the police can take away the car; the issue we are talking about is the subsequent removal and disposal of that car—taking it away permanently—which the local authority can already do. I encourage all local authorities to make use of this power. This debate arises because in the years in which the Opposition were in government, they did not put enough resources into local government, as I think everyone would agree, to allow it to enforce the laws already in place. There are already powers for local authorities, and we are building on those powers in this legislation.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we have said, we know the horrors that the Iranian Government and the IRGC have inflicted on their people, and the work that they have done. Of course, we must do all we can. As we have said in this place, we already sanction hundreds of Iranians, who cannot come to this country as a result, and who have had their assets seized. However, the shadow Minister knows that legislation must be passed to enable us to do this piece of work. As a responsible Government, committed to protecting the safety and security of this country, we will not deviate from that position.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I will explain what we want to see as we go forward. It is important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making its decision, and that will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that being said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu that builds on the previous Government amendment. It offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations, and we hope it addresses their lordships’ concerns. The amendment in lieu extends the list of considerations that the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider as part of a youth diversion order application to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others, beyond the youth justice teams mandated in clause 174 of the Bill. That will extend to applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order. It will go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than there simply being a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that with these changes, the Liberal Democrats will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment. Lastly, Lords amendment 359 relates to the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Opposition seek to return to this issue yet again. Successive Governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section 3 has been met. To suggest, as the amendment provides, that the Government should review every organisation related to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent is simply not a serious proposition. To help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section 3 of the 2000 Act. Before I conclude, let me briefly explain Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role-playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content that mimics child sex abuse and risks normalising such horrific conduct. The Government amendments agreed in the Lords clarify the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. That will ensure that the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts. I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. It is entitled to ask this House to think again. On each of these four issues I am addressing today, we have already done that once.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on his career in policing, on everything he shared with us and on securing this debate. The start of his speech was incredibly powerful, and reflected what I hear often from our police both in my incredibly privileged position as Policing Minister and in my constituency role in Croydon. I have heard of many cases, such as that of a police officer in Croydon who had to hold the wound of someone who had been stabbed while they waited for the ambulance. The trauma of that side of the role is there loud and clear for everyone to see, but there is also cumulative trauma from all the other things that have to be done, from how the police are sometimes treated and from how they feel that they do not necessarily have the support of Government or the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe described that well, and I cannot do it better. Tomorrow, I will spend the day trying to be as incognito as possible while going around with a neighbourhood police officer. I will spend the whole day on a shift and hear as much as I can about the lived experience of being a police officer. I am sad not to have done that before this debate, but I am looking forward to it very much. However, my hon. Friend made a powerful speech and, as I think all other Members in the debate have said, the police do a brilliant job and we should not underestimate what they do. We should thank them, never forget what we ask of them and always do right by them. Within that context, the Government are trying to reform policing to enable the police to do the job that they came into the service to do, whether that means ripping away the bureaucracy of a lot of the tasks that the police are given—historically, we have not invested in new technology and pieces of kit—or putting police back into our neighbourhoods, so that we can do the things that the public want us to do without public frustration at the lack of response. Of course, the biggest police reform in 200 years is looking at the whole structure within policing. In that context, police officers still have to get on with their job; they not only have a difficult job, but have quite a lot of change heading their way. We need to respect that. In the middle of all that is the Police Federation, which has an interesting role. A lot of Members have said the same thing: on the one hand, the police do a brilliant job, and a lot of the fed reps do a brilliant job, but on the other hand, something is clearly wrong with how the federation has been functioning. We have talked about this before, but since I became the Minister in September I have seen the fed every two weeks and we have a catch-up. Most of the conversations are about what we are doing on the transformation journey, what has happened and what is coming down the line. I think that it is fair to say there has been frustration, such as about the 33 recommendations for changes needed in the federation made by Baroness Bousted in her review. The change is not coming in the way that people expect, as fast as people want, or in a way that we would expect. Government have a role, but we do not have quite the same relationship with any other organisation; we have a statutory responsibility. The legislation states: “There shall continue to be a Police Federation for England and Wales for the purpose of representing members of the police forces in England and Wales, and special constables”, and that in fulfilling that purpose, the federation “must…protect the public interest…maintain high standards of conduct, and…maintain high standards of transparency.” Our obligation as a Government to ensure that those things are happening is set in law. Clearly, therefore, we take the question of whether those functions are fulfilled in the way that they should be very seriously. It is no secret that we have been frustrated, as have many others, at the pace and scale of change. Of course, we saw arrests that came in the middle of this conversation as well, which have made things very difficult. We were very explicit about this in the White Paper on police reform. We said: “We expect to see clear plans and…demonstrable improvement” in the fed’s operation. We also said: “In the absence of such improvements, this Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.” Given the arrests since the publication of the White Paper, it is very hard for the federation to give us the reassurance that we need, because of everything that has happened. We are continuing the conversations with the federation. There is a lot of interaction between officials in my Department and the fed, and we are sharing data and information, and talking these things through. I do not think that anyone can pretend that the status quo is an option. It is not. This Government stand ready to do the right thing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), asked what we are considering. I am not in a position to say what the next steps look like, but clearly matters have moved on and we need to ensure that there is proper representation for rank and file. The judicial review, as well as the criminal investigation, means that there is a limit to what I can say. I very much welcome this debate and the contributions to it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind remarks and I will see the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) talked about what she and the police in her community need, and she said that she is supporting the campaign. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about the importance of mental health. The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), talked about the challenges for women members of the fed in particular, which is something that is very live to me as well. I have attended several meetings in which I have talked about the issues that arise if a police officer is, for example, in a relationship with another police officer and there is domestic abuse in that relationship. What we do in that space is very difficult; there are lots of challenges there. I thank everybody who has attended this debate, including the shadow Minister, for their thoughtful comments. I think that we all know that there is a problem and I recognise the frustration felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe, because he wants to see movement. We are looking at this issue very carefully. We are very mindful of the arrests that have happened, very mindful that we have not seen the pace of change that we want, and very mindful of our legal obligation to make sure that the rank and file have representation.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in what the Luton Youth Partnership Service is doing, and perhaps my hon. Friend and I can have a chat about that at some point. We are not trying to reinvent the wheel, but rather support the organisations that already exist. There are some gaps that we are trying to fill. For example, we are running a whole range of pilots across the country where we are intervening with young people who have been arrested but not charged; a lot of those people slipped through the net. We are doing a lot of work in that space, but we do not want to reinvent what is already working. I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend more about her partnership.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that a very high proportion of people who commit knife offences are detected and charged. How we influence people who may want to pick up a knife is an interesting and difficult question. We are investing a small amount of money in trialling some communication techniques. A lot of money has been spent on the violence against women and girls campaign, which many people will have seen; it tries to educate men on violence and how to behave. We are going to do some testing on which messages might work, and which might not, to try to target people who might pick up a knife. The right hon. Gentleman’s first question was about the sale of knives online, and whether retailers can detect issues that should be raised. The National Knife Crime Centre, which was launched a couple of weeks ago and has £1.7 million in Government funding, has a team of police officers who will investigate the sale of knives online. We are introducing legislation about buying knives in bulk; sadly, people buy, for example, 300 knives, and then sell them in their communities. Retailers will have an obligation to tell the police if people buy in bulk. We will be able to see the patterns and intervene at the right time.