Defence Spending and Readiness

Debate between Harriet Cross and Louise Sandher-Jones

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

It is on the hon. Gentleman as well. He has questions to ask about his party’s support for defence—for example on its refusal to fund the welding school that would have brought us vital skills.

The Defence Secretary is working through the DIP line by line, so that our personnel have the kit and technology they need to deter, fight and win. He has been clear that he will get the DIP right and will publish it before the NATO summit in Ankara.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I think I have been generous. I am going to keep going—thank you.

Unlike the suggestion in today’s motion, the DIP has not halted this Government’s investment in turning around our hollowed out armed forces. Since the election, we have signed over 1,400 major defence contracts, with 94% of that total contract spend going to UK-based companies as we deliver on our commitment to back British.

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Harriet Cross and Louise Sandher-Jones

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Louise Jones]

Q In my constituency of North East Derbyshire, we have real issues with car theft, and in this Bill we have a couple of clauses affecting signal jammers. I am interested to hear your thoughts on how that will have a practical impact on preventing car theft.

Roger Hirst: Car theft has been growing across the country, but it has been particularly spectacular in Essex. Last year, in one area of our county, it rose by 80%, which is dreadful. Jammers are undoubtedly a help. The technology is available to stop the passive entry system, but the criminals are very inventive, and are currently buying in quite expensive bits of kit from Poland, which they can bring in legally. As Mr Barber said earlier, we really need to have the legislation to mean that owning those things is a crime. They are good only for one purpose, but at the moment buying them is perfectly legal. Using them is a crime; having them should be illegal as well.

I have been to see and talk to Jaguar Land Rover, because it was one of the companies particularly hard hit by theft in our area—I think Essex has a good reputation for being good buyers of Range Rovers. It responded very well, and committed to retrofitting security to its vehicles to change the risks of passive vehicle entry, which is basically where you have a key that you do not have to press a button on, and there is a dialogue and signal between your vehicle and your key. That is possible for a criminal to read very easily, because there is no single instance where you are pressing the button. Jaguar Land Rover has made that much more difficult to intercept.

To ban the equipment that could do that would be really helpful. At the moment you have to pay for it, but it is readily available over the internet. It is possible for the car manufacturers to make that more difficult—I think they are always working on it, but they will, however, always have to run ahead of the inventiveness of the criminal. Whatever can be done about the ownership of the bits of equipment that criminals need to be able to break into vehicles that easily would be extremely helpful.

Matthew Barber: What will be key here is the secondary legislation—from memory, I think it is clause 78 or 79 that allows the Secretary of State to make additional secondary legislation. That will be critical in years to come. As Mr Hirst said, that technology is constantly changing. A definition in legislation now around signal jammers will no doubt be out of date—possibly even before the Bill gets Royal Assent. It will be critical for the Home Office to keep that list of prohibited equipment under review.

[Harriet Cross]

Q I want to reflect quickly on knife crime, and the Bill’s provisions on that. First, what are your comments on the clause to make it an offence to possess with the intent to cause unlawful violence? Do you think that is practically workable? How will that be enforced? More generally on tackling knife crime, what have you seen in your areas that has been good, bad or indifferent? Is there anything in particular missing from the Bill?

Matthew Barber: An awful lot of focus in legislation goes on the type of knife being used—the talk about zombie knives and so on. Although I would not oppose the legislation that has been put in place to prohibit the use or ownership of those weapons, the reality is that the vast majority of knife-enabled incidents—whether that is robbery, theft or injury—are caused by kitchen knives, which we cannot realistically outlaw in our society.

I think the use of intent and the ability to seize within private dwellings is really important. The police may be dealing with a suspect for an unrelated offence around drug possession, for example, and while they are in that property, they may see a stash of knives that are clearly likely to be used for criminal purposes—not for someone cutting their salad—yet they would currently be powerless to do anything about that, because they are being legally held in private premises. This is one of the things that I would put in that category of tying up some of the loopholes in legislation, which will not actually cost policing anything. At the moment we have police officers in situations where they cannot use current legislation to protect the public.

More broadly, where we have seen success, certainly in Thames Valley and across the country where it has been done, it is that focus on the possession of knives that is absolutely vital. It is about a good use of stop and search, and making sure that we are focusing not just on the people who are already committing the dangerous offences of robbery and assault, but on getting the knives off the streets in the first place, recognising that possession itself is critical to enabling others to commit further offences.

Roger Hirst: I very much agree with that. It has always been a difficult area, but I have never really understood why the previous legislation, and perhaps therefore this legislation, could not simply ban all bladed instruments that do not have a legitimate use in the environment in which they are found.

We had a machete battle on Southend seafront last summer, which was extraordinary. None of those young people had any reason to be carrying a two-foot bladed instrument. In fact, why on earth were they allowed to buy them in the first place? The provisions around purchase over the internet need to be enforceable. It must be the case that people have to produce ID when they order it, and when it is delivered, to prove that they are over 18. But also, why are things like that available over the internet at all? Having talked to agricultural and nature groups, I know there is nothing that you can do with a machete that you cannot do with a billhook, and you are not going to take a billhook to a battle, so why not just ban machetes? That would really help.

Also, with the way the Bill is phrased at the moment, the defence of saying, “I’m only carrying it for self-defence,” would effectively still work, because the implication is that you need to be going out with the intent to cause harm. I think if you are carrying it for self-defence, you are prepared to use it. I would ask the legal brains to think about a way of phrasing it to mean that the plea of, “I am only carrying it to defend myself,” is equally an offence, because that is something you can carry into a street fight.

Emily Spurrell: On Merseyside, notwithstanding some really tragic incidents, we have actually seen knife crime going down. We have seen about a 7% reduction in serious violence, and particularly knife crime incidents. I think there are two reasons for that. First, there has been a huge amount of proactivity. We were the first force to pilot serious violence reduction orders, which have made a difference in terms of identifying the individuals who are routinely carrying knives and posing the threat that has been described. It has been helpful to monitor that. There was a previous question about prolific offenders; we have seen some good success with that.

The flip side of that is public education and engagement, particularly with young people. We work with KnifeSavers to educate about the dangers of carrying a knife, and the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a stabbing if you carry a knife yourself, even if you are doing it for protection. Through our violence reduction partnership, we have done some work to educate young people and help them to understand how they can get into that situation and what the alternatives are. There is a huge amount of work on education and prevention, which has to go hand in hand with all the enforcement activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones]

Q Farmers in my constituency of North East Derbyshire tell me that they have a frustrating issue with off-road bikes often being used across their land. Do you think the Bill goes far enough with the new powers to seize those vehicles?

Sam Durham: I think it does. That power to seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner is key. We think of farming in rural areas, but the urban fringe area is key to where vehicles—bikes, quad bikes or even off-road vehicles—are used in an antisocial manner. Many farmers flag it to me that those people are out there, and the measures in the Bill look positive on that side.

[Harriet Cross]

Q Missing from the Bill is anything to do with livestock theft or worrying. Do you consider those to be covered sufficiently in other legislation, or would you like to see something included in the Bill to recognise that that is a huge issue for farmers and rural landowners? I do not want to diminish theft from a shop in any way, but the value of a cow or sheep is significant. Should that be better represented in the Bill?

Sam Durham: On the livestock worrying issue, there is a private Member’s Bill progressing at the moment—the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill—that I believe the Government have said they will support. A lot of the measures in it have appeared at other times in legislation but then been dropped. We have worked quite closely with National Police Chiefs’ Council and others, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, and we would support a lot of those measures to give the police more powers to investigate, seize dogs and take samples to link dogs to attacked animals. I think that that Bill, if it progresses, will cover that issue.

Livestock theft is a complicated issue, because you need the skills to handle livestock in order to steal livestock, but it is a concern, because there are routes for livestock to enter the food chain, and if animals are being stolen and processed in a different way, there are potential food hygiene issues. The picture on livestock theft is not clear at the moment. The National Rural Crime Unit now has a livestock theft co-ordinator, who is doing a lot of research into how livestock theft is recorded by the police. At the moment, there is not a clear picture of how it is recorded by each force, so there is not a national picture on livestock theft. Again, we have the issue of how it is reported by our farming members. There are not measures in the Bill on livestock theft, but, potentially as a result of the research that the National Rural Crime Unit is doing, there could be scope for future legislation on it.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Harriet Cross and Louise Sandher-Jones

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Louise Jones]

What is fair is a 4.1% rise in the state pension and a 5.5% to 6% rise for our soldiers, teachers and nurses, and I will say that as many times as I need to say it.

Many people in this country have been grappling with skyrocketing energy bills, which have caused real poverty. Those bills have skyrocketed largely because we are at the mercy of international markets, so it is vital that we take back sovereign control of our energy and energy prices, and GB Energy is a vital part of that.

[Harriet Cross]

The interim chief executive officer of GB Energy has said that reducing energy bills

“is not in the remit of GB Energy”,

so how is GB Energy going to help with energy bills?

[Louise Jones]

GB Energy will turbocharge renewables across the country. Once we have that, we will have more control over our energy systems and, as the hon. Lady knows, we will have control over what happens with bills.