Sarah Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Animal Testing · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly take that question back to my colleagues who are implementing the strategy, and I have heard from other colleagues the call for a faster timeline. The science is developing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles mentioned the transformational technology that we have and the opportunities for growth. We do not know the answer to some things because the science is not yet finished, but I hear the point about pushing for change as soon as possible. The purpose of the strategy is to phase out animal testing. That is this Government’s ambition and intention. The relevant human alternatives that we want to replace it with have to continue to protect public health and product safety, and we have to be sure that replacements are able to do that. Uncomfortable though it is, we know that the use of animals in science has enabled us to develop medicines that we would not have been able to develop otherwise would. To replace that, we need to make sure that what comes afterwards is robust. It is everybody’s ambition to have a revolution in research and innovation in this country, and to build on that and use our expertise to make sure we go as fast as possible, but I hear the call for timelines and I will talk to my colleagues about how we try to do that. The strategy has a tiered approach to identify which animal test can be replaced soonest, and which are the easier ones to get done first. I very much hear the call for a timescale for a longer-term road map. There is great public interest in making sure that we treat animals as they should be treated when they are used in research. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles talked a lot about the work of the regulator, and how we should take a robust approach to regulation. The regulator is overseen by the Home Office Minister Lord Hanson, who signed off on a package of reform to it last year, which my hon. Friend mentioned. My hon. Friend was slightly more dismissive of it than perhaps we would be, and I heard what he said, but there has been an increase in the number of people who are able to ensure oversight and a new focus through the reform programme. It has just begun, and we need to give it a bit of time to see whether it works more effectively. I hear loud and clear his calls for the Government to ensure that the regulator is as robust as it can be. It might be useful to look at how the regulator currently works, and then we can work together going forward. I do not know if my hon. Friend has met the regulator, but it might be worth convening something with other interested MPs, to have a conversation about the reforms and where we think things will improve. The regulator is set up to prevent compliance breaches and investigate them. If non-compliance is confirmed, the regulator has a broad range of sanctions available. There is a conversation about whether it is using all those sanctions in the way that it could. The sanctions range in severity, and my hon. Friend mentioned those at the lower end, but the regulator does have more extensive powers to act. It might be useful to have a conversation with the regulator about how we balance self-referral. Self-referrals often come in; we have very good and honourable people doing research and using the system as it should be used. I also hear the slight question about self-referral, and whether we are in the places that we need to be as much as we should be. There is a balance in the regulatory approach and how punitive the approaches can be. We want the sector to be open and transparent, so we have to get that balance right. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that. If we are disproportionate—if that is a risk—then work gets offshored and goes elsewhere, where the systems are not anywhere near as powerful as they are in this country. We need to have proportionality in our approach to non-compliance. We also need to understand that self-reporting is not a bad thing, but a good thing. We want a culture of care that is respectful of animals. Most incidents of non-compliance are self-reported, as I have said, and the decisions taken after that are then proportionate. Where there are more significant breaches, the sanctions are there, and we could have a conversation with the regulator about when those sanctions are imposed and when they are not. I thank colleagues again for raising this issue. We have a strict and rigorous licensing regime, which I am partly responsible for, both for the 100-odd companies that are able to test on animals and the 13,000 individuals who have a licence to use animals in testing. The regulator is going through reform and has had its functions beefed up over the last year. We have an ambition as a Government to end the use of animals in science, but, as a Minister, I will always commit to push for more and will always listen to my colleagues for advice. The good takeaways from this debate are that we need to understand where the regulator is coming from a bit more, what the balance is for proportionality, how we can all move forward, and, having heard the calls for more timeliness in ending the use of animals in testing, how we can work with colleagues across the Government to deliver that. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context. The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members and hon. Friends for a detailed inspection of this SI. It is right and proper that that inspection should happen; that is the point of democracy and I welcome the questions. To start with, I want to set out the principles to respond to some of the broad themes. First, there is a national conversation about data. We all worry about what happens to our data, where it goes and how it is held. There are three vehicles through which data flows that we are looking at. One is GDPR, which we all know and talk about often; one is part 3 of the DPA 2018, which applies to the police, the CPS and the courts; and one is part 4 of the DPA, which applies to GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. We are enabling sharing between the latter two. The principle I want to stress is that it is not the case that somebody will ask for this data sharing and it will be given randomly. They will have to make the case and demonstrate that they need continued real-time data sharing. At the moment, one authority can ask the other for data, and they might need that data as a one-off. This instrument is designed to be used for continued real-time access to data where that data needs to be shared. It has come from what we learned from incidents such as Manchester Arena and Fishmongers’ Hall, where real-time sharing of data is needed. That is the principle. I want to reassure colleagues that much consideration has been given to how this will operate and to make sure that data sharing is done correctly. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government consulted the Information Commissioner, which has confirmed that it is content with what we are laying out today. I hope that gives reassurance. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked whether this instrument will come to the Intelligence and Security Committee and about being satisfied that the Department was overseeing in an appropriate way. I am happy to write to him with more information. He will appreciate that a detailed debate on this took place prior to my arrival, but I have studied and talked with officials at length on the premise of this piece of legislation and I am very satisfied that the checks and balances are there. I was asked whether there was a consultation with the bodies listed; there was. There was a question about what the provost marshal is. He—I say “he”, although I do not know whether it is a “he” or a “she”; I suspect it may be a “he”—is the head of the military police for each service. That is from the Police Act 1997. Again, I am happy to share more information on that with the right hon. Gentleman. Another thing that might be reassuring to Members is that the notices will be made public. It is not that there will be no controls once the data is shared—the ICO oversight remains, so there will be a regime within which that data is controlled. Members should be reassured about that. On the question why some of the bodies are on the list and others are not, as I said in my opening remarks we cannot comment on the rationale behind each individual authority included on the list, but I hope that my explanation of the premise from which we have approached this satisfies hon. Members. However, of course there is no restriction—this being a democracy—on Members’ continuing to ask these kinds of questions and making sure that we are doing everything that we need to do.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. This instrument, which was laid before the House on 7 July, specifies the qualifying competent authorities that will be able to apply for a designation notice under section 89 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Section 89, when commenced, will insert sections 82A to 82E into the Data Protection Act 2018. Although those provisions have already been debated and passed by Parliament, during the passage of the parent Act, in order to place the regulations in context I will briefly summarise their purpose. Under the 2018 Act, authorities processing for law enforcement purposes and intelligence services are subject to two separate legislative data processing regimes for processing personal data. This precludes a joint controllership between the two entities and makes working together more difficult, especially in the context of public safety and national security. For example, an intelligence service and a police force working together on a joint investigation could not work from a single shared dataset setting out individuals of interest and related intelligence. Instead, each must have their own copy of the data, sharing data back and forth between one another and across data protection regimes to allow each to update their intelligence. This obviously decreases efficiency and reduces joint working capabilities. There is a clear public interest in enabling closer joint working between law enforcement bodies and the intelligence services in matters of national security, as highlighted by reports into the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena terrorist attacks. Once the provisions are in force, qualifying competent authority will, together with at least one intelligence service, be able to apply for what is called a designation notice from the Secretary of State under section 82A of the 2018 Act, where it is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security. This designation notice will allow the intelligence service and qualifying competent authority in question to form a joint controllership for that processing activity. This change will align the legislation with the position under the Data Protection Act 1998, before the adoption of the GDPR. Under the 1998 Act, joint controllerships between the two organisations were permitted. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 inserts section 82(2A) in the 2018 Act, which introduces a power to make regulations specifying which competent authorities are able to apply for a designation notice alongside an intelligence service. Competent authorities are defined in section 30(1) of the 2018 Act as “a person specified or described in Schedule 7” to the Act, or “any other person” who has a statutory function for a law enforcement purpose and is therefore capable of processing data under the law enforcement regime. The Home Secretary is exercising that power by introducing the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025, which specify 23 qualifying competent authorities. The regulations have been drafted in consultation with the partners operating in the area of national security. The regulations include competent authorities involved in areas where national security is a consideration. Given the sensitivities involved, the Government cannot go into detail publicly on the rationale behind the inclusion of individual authorities in the list. However, the authorities that have been included are those where there is reasonable potential for a joint controllership to be formed for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The list includes UK police forces—both territorial forces and other branches such as counter-terrorism police and military police—prison and probation services, and other bodies involved in law enforcement and offender management. The Information Commissioner’s Office was consulted on the proposed qualified competent authorities, and confirmed that it was content with those included. As the threat to the UK’s national security evolves and changes, competent authorities may be added or removed from the regulations. The legislation requires amending regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The UK and its citizens continue to face a wide array of threats from a diverse range of actors. The provisions within this instrument will strengthen the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence services to work more closely to protect our national security. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of our defence industry and the need for us to support it. Of course, the industrial strategy outlined eight growth-driving sectors that we believe can be turbocharged with Government support—defence was one of them. We have published those sector plans, apart from the defence one, which will come shortly—he should look out for it. We have significantly increased funding for defence, which will lead to thousands of jobs across the UK. I will work closely with my colleagues in defence, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, to ensure that we procure UK jobs where we can and support our industry to grow.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the impact of the Ukraine war on our energy prices highlighted how we are reliant on the global oil and gas market. That is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030, to take us away from that reliance and to stop such a crisis happening again. I should point out that the crisis at Liberty is nothing to do with energy prices—it operates electric arc furnaces, so it is not anything do with carbon pricing or anything else the right hon. Gentleman might be referring to. He is right that energy prices are too high, which is why we are intervening. We will see a significant reduction in electricity costs when we extend the industry super-charger from 60% to 90%. As I outlined earlier, in a scenario where Speciality Steel is producing what it was producing a couple of years ago, that will give it upwards of £1.5 million off its energy costs. That is a lot more than the previous Government ever did.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps go for a tour and see what the speciality is, but it is defence, aerospace and industrial engineering on the Stocksbridge site. The Rotherham site has two electric arc furnaces, which feed the Stocksbridge site, and there is huge expertise there. There are a number of other sites that feed various sectors, such as the automotive industry, hydraulics and a whole range of others. There are a range of specialisms. On the investigation, the official receiver will look at what is true and what is not, because there have not been any accounts published for many years. They will establish what has happened. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service today to ask it to take special account of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, and to pass over any information it uncovers to the Serious Fraud Office, so that it can do its work.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency · Hansard source

  More

  Navantia, which is building three ships, has recently entered into a contract to use Liberty’s steel; that relates to the Dalzell plant in Scotland, so it is unaffected by the announcements we have made today. Of course, I work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we use British Steel where we can, and that we have the right infrastructure across the country, producing the right types of steel. We produce some types of steel for defence and not others, and some types of steel for shipping and not others. We need to do everything we can to protect British jobs and produce what we can here in the UK.