Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility
Sarah Jones Excerpts(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this debate, and I thank all colleagues who have spoken today. I think it is apparent that everybody in the Chamber cares very deeply about this issue and about how we deal with the harm done to individuals, communities and society by drugs, and I hope that the same is true of everybody across the Commons. I am also very grateful to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work in this area and for conducting its inquiry. I thank all those who took part in it and who have given us the opportunity to reflect on the issues that were raised.
In the short time that I have been the Minister for Policing and Crime, I have met families who have lost loved ones through drugs, and in my own time as a constituency MP, I have regularly seen the impact of drugs. I think that we can all agree that we need to do everything we can as a country.
Dame Carol Black, who was appointed under the previous Government to be the independent adviser on drugs, has recently agreed to continue her role, for which I am very grateful. I have had the privilege of talking to her about the strategy that she developed under the previous Government and about how we think it can work. We are delivering, as the previous Government did, on the recommendations of her landmark review, which was wide-ranging. It was not just about the enforcement side—making our streets safer—but about making our communities healthier and making people better, treating them in the right way so that they can recover and thrive.
I also want to welcome Professor David Wood, the new chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His huge experience and knowledge will be invaluable, and we are really pleased to see him. We are committed to providing people who use drugs with the support that they need. There was some debate about whether we look at the role of drugs through a Home Office or a health lens; to my mind, it should be both. When I speak to the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), she is very clear that she takes a public health approach to drug and alcohol addiction and treatment.
We are investing £3.4 billion over the next three years in treatment, sustainable recovery services and peer networks that can support people in recovery with employment, housing and education. The need for the holistic approach was raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I think it is the right approach, and that £3.4 billion over the next three years will help.
There are new treatments and new ways of supporting people. I have spoken to the sector about how we make sure treatments are available not just for the traditional opioid addictions, but for new forms of addiction, whether that is ketamine or other drugs, and how we evolve slightly different approaches over time. The Home Office and the Department of Health meet together; I meet my colleague in the Department of Health who is overseeing all the treatment interventions. We want to keep on top of all the emerging evidence about what treatment is best, and we work constantly with operational partners across the country to make sure we deliver the right treatment.
On drugs harm, the need for interventions and the need to get rid of the criminal gangs that drive that practice, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), talked about the county lines programme. That programme has had a significant impact in reducing harm as well as arresting criminals, taking them off the streets and shutting down county lines. Since we came to power in July 2024 the programme has led to more than 8,000 arrests and the closure of 3,000 county lines. Importantly, in that period alone 600 vulnerable young people were supported with specialist services to build safer futures. The criminal gangs exploit children and use the drugs trade to make money; by focusing on them through the county lines programme, we have had significant success in terms of drug misuse, hospitalisations and the actual impact on the criminals being arrested.
The National Crime Agency works tirelessly on disrupting and dismantling the networks. At the UK border, through intelligence with other countries and the advanced technology that we use, we are intercepting more drugs than ever. In the year ending March 2024, Border Force seized more than 100 tonnes of drugs—the highest amount on record. We are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths throughout the UK. We of course recognise the importance of evidence-based, high-quality treatment, and will continue to take preventive public health measures to tackle drug misuse and support people to live better lives.
In the response to the Select Committee’s report, I made the Government’s position on Glasgow’s pilot drug consumption room clear. We recognise the Scottish Government’s need to tackle drug misuse. We have talked already about the statistics on the number of drug deaths in Scotland, so I will not repeat them, but they are incredibly high and we recognise that more needs to be done. We recognise that where responsibility is devolved, the Scottish Government will need to tackle drug misuse in the ways that they see fit.
The Lord Advocate has issued a statement of prosecution policy for the operation of the pilot drug consumption room in Glasgow, as has been talked about. We respect the independence of that decision. I want to be clear that we have no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to enable the operation of drug consumption rooms in any part of the United Kingdom, but we are committed to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government.
We meet collectively. The UK Government lead the UK drugs ministerial team, which is a forum for Ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That forum provides the opportunity for all four Governments to talk to one another and to come together to share challenges and best practice. The last meeting was in Edinburgh and hosted by the Scottish Government, and we will meet again this year, enabling us to talk to one another and to share information. Of course we will also work closely with the Scottish Government to enable licensed drug-checking facilities to operate lawfully.
As we have heard, chronic drug dependence plagues the lives not just of individuals, but of those closest to them. It is in all our interests to prevent people from being engulfed by that spiral, and to help those who have on to a better path. There is a determination from this Government to get it right and to look at the evidence. We are not persuaded to make any of the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and her Committee asked us to make, but that is not to say that we should not carry on talking about these issues.
The evidence-based approach that has been talked about and the review that is being done of the pilot at the Thistle are very important. I very much want to see what the evidence shows. I am committed to making sure we are always learning and always changing our approach. We met as a collective group of Ministers across Government to look at some of the problems in, for example, the prison system—we know it is a huge driver of drug use—and to see what we can do collectively across Government. When the three-year pilot of the Thistle is finished, we will of course look at that and will want to see what we can do in response. I think we collectively agree on the need to tackle drug misuse as a health issue as well as a Home Office and crime issue. This Government are doing both, but I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues in the days and months ahead to make sure we get it right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Jones Excerpts(5 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Rural crime is a scourge on our communities, and this Government are taking action to tackle it. We are improving the safety of rural communities through tougher measures on equipment theft and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, farm theft and fly-tipping, backed by over £800,000 of funding for the specialist national rural and wildlife crime policing units.
Paul Davies
The most common and impactful rural crimes in West Yorkshire include the theft of farm machinery, fuel and livestock, incidents of livestock worrying, and wildlife and environmental offences. Increased funding for specialist units, such as the national rural crime and the national wildlife crime units, is welcome. They will help to co-ordinate and support police forces across England and Wales to target rural crime. What other actions can the Government take to help tackle such crime?
Sarah Jones
I am delighted to say that, since the last Home Office questions, the National Police Chiefs’ Council launched its rural and wildlife crime strategy, which we absolutely support. The Government are going further: new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce powers for the police to enter and search premises for items that have been electronically tracked and are reasonably believed to have been stolen, and we will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which will strengthen measures to tackle the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly that used in agricultural settings.
Terry Jermy
Waste crime—an increasing concern in rural areas—often has links to serious and organised crime. Just last week, the Eastern Daily Press revealed that although there were nearly 1,300 reports of waste crime in Norfolk in a five-year period, just two people have been convicted for such offences in that time. In one case in my South West Norfolk constituency, 250 bales of DIY waste were dumped on a farm, with an estimated removal cost of £250,000. Will the Minister tell the House what more the Department can do to tackle waste crime in rural areas?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend speaks about a very serious crime, and we must go further. Last year, the Government announced a huge crackdown on cowboy waste operators in order to tackle fly-tipping. To support local authorities, our Crime and Policing Bill will introduce a power to issue statutory guidance on fly-tipping enforcement, and there will be a new five-year prison term for waste cowboys. We need to crack down on that crime.
Ben Goldsborough
Heritage crime is a huge issue in rural communities like mine. My constituency boast some of the jewels in England’s crown—Roman town Venta Icenorum, Wyndham Abbey and the wooden henge in Arminghall—which puts us more at risk of heritage crime. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can train scrap metal dealers to be more aware of the damage that it does, and how might we record the statistics more appropriately so that we can give police the resources they need?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is lucky to have such wonderful places in his constituency. Of course I will meet him—this is a very important matter. We are supporting the work of Historic England on a number of issues to tackle heritage crime, but I am sure that we can go further, and I look forward to talking to him about it.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, car thefts and related burglaries continue to rise. Nationally, almost four in five car thefts go unsolved. This is not low-level rural crime; it is organised, highly profitable, and deeply disruptive and upsetting for families and businesses reliant on vehicles. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle organised vehicle crime, and will they back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a specialist national unit to work with police forces, such as Warwickshire police, to crack down on car crime?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady points to a very significant crime. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will be making sure that there are more neighbourhood police in our communities. We will obviously continue to work with car manufacturers to make sure we design crime out as much as we can. I would be very happy to talk to the hon. Lady about any other proposals she has, but this Government are investing more in policing and cracking down on crime.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
One crime that most concerns farmers in Hampshire and around the country is that of illegal meat imports. Last year, I visited the Port of Dover, where I was shown some of the illegal meat that had been seized. This is not only a public health issue; it puts the UK livestock industry at risk of a notifiable disease outbreak, such as foot and mouth disease. If I were caught driving illegal meat into the UK in a lorry, the authorities would not have the powers to arrest me and would not be allowed to seize the lorry, but they would have to clean my lorry and disinfect it at the taxpayer’s expense before sending me on my way. Does the Minister agree that this is absolutely crazy and will she look at how we can equip the hard-working teams at the ports with the powers needed to provide a proper deterrent to stop this meat coming in?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman points to an issue that is of course very important. We need to make sure that we do not have illegal meat coming into the country. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my colleagues on the Front Bench today will of course take these issues seriously. I am very happy to take this matter further and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Only one in 200 police officers in England and Wales is allocated to rural crime teams. In Cumbria, the situation is even worse: only five officers in 2024 were allocated to our rural crime team. Given what Members have said already today, is it not clear that people who live in very rural communities are subject not only to crime, but to an even more concentrated sense of the fear of crime, because they know that they could be 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest officer? Is it not time for the Government to think again about rural crime and make sure that every community, particularly rural counties like Cumbria, has a dedicated rural crime team that is bigger than five officers?
Sarah Jones
Our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies to rural as well as urban areas, and the increase of 3,000 in police numbers that we will see by next March will go across the whole country. The hon. Gentleman points to a very specific challenge. Just a few weeks ago, I was with Thames Valley police, who have a rural crime taskforce; the work they are doing and the expertise they are bringing to particular challenges faced by rural communities was very impressive, and I would like to see other forces following their lead.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We take theft from commercial vehicles extremely seriously. These crimes are often committed by organised criminals who seek to profit from tool theft, and we are supporting law enforcement officials as they seek to disrupt these networks. Courts already have tough sentencing powers in this area, with a maximum prison sentence of seven years for theft and up to life for violent robbery.
Dave Doogan
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker—but unfortunately for the haulage industry, 2026 promises to be a year of increasing freight crime from haulage operators up and down these islands. Whether it is Alan Davie of Forfar, Taylor’s of Forfar or McLaughlan’s of Perth, who operate up and down from Scotland to England, when drivers park up at night, they are at risk of having their loads stolen. This is a growing problem that would benefit from there being an offence for aggravated theft from commercial vehicles. I have petitioned the Scottish Government on the very same issue and I urge the Minister to look at the matter.
Sarah Jones
While I am always happy to keep things under review, we currently do not think that such an offence is the answer, although that is not to say that there is not a problem—there absolutely is. I will shortly be hosting industry representatives to discuss what more is required to tackle this growing and significant problem, which the hon. Gentleman is right to identify.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have both rural and urban areas. I have had numerous people from rural areas contact me about theft from commercial vehicles, including in Quarndon. As we move forward with our police recruitment plans to get 13,000 more police officers by the end of this Parliament, may I ask that we ensure there are enough officers in rural areas to address this issue? It is particularly pertinent in those places.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As I said earlier, our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies to all parts of the country. It is very important that we understand the particular challenges that rural communities face and that we robustly support our police, who are getting increased funding this year and will continue to be supported by us to ensure that we tackle these very significant crimes.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
As part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has a named and contactable officer dedicated to tackling local issues, with forces increasing patrols in town centres and other hotspots based on local demand. We have also made £200 million available to police forces this financial year to kick-start the journey towards delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, including 3,000 by March 2026.
Monica Harding
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker.
I pay tribute to the work of the police in my constituency of Esher and Walton, who have got the rate of solved burglaries up by 84%. However, while the local police are doing a great job catching burglars, they tell me that the perception that they are unable to bring those burglars to justice is making it more difficult to tackle persistent offenders and is impacting on the confidence of local residents. My constituents were incredulous recently when the borough commander told them that two individuals charged with burglary in December last year had been given a date to appear for trial in September 2027. What conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to increase the number of Crown court sitting days so that my constituents can have confidence?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady highlights a problem that we inherited from the previous Government, which is very considerable—we do not deny that. We in the Home Office are talking to our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice every day about how we manage the situation and increase the speed with which people are brought to justice. This Government want to see everyone who commits a crime do the time.
Luke Murphy
Happy new year to you and your team, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, which puts named, contactable officers in every community, and indeed the increased presence of patrols in the Top of the Town in Basingstoke. However, as the Minister knows—we have corresponded on this issue—one of the issues that we in Basingstoke face is the retention of officers, with locally trained officers moving to higher-paid forces such as those in London. What more can the Department do, and what more can I do, to ensure we improve the retention of officers in Basingstoke, including to support community policing?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not just public confidence in policing that fell under the last Government but how the police felt they were treated, which affects retention. One aspect of the White Paper process and police reform is looking at how we train police, how we treat them and how we give them the support they need to do the job they want to do, rather than the bureaucracy that blights a lot of their time. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are working closely with the police bodies to ensure that we get this right.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is becoming increasingly apparent that West Midlands police retrospectively created a rationale and, according to remarkable investigative work by The Sunday Times, false evidence to justify their predetermined decision to ban fans from the world’s only Jewish state from going to a football match in Britain’s second city. Does the Minister think that the chief constable of such a force can possibly be overseeing effective community policing? How can he continue in his role?
Sarah Jones
The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole Government have been clear that we believe the wrong decision was made. We have asked the inspector to look at what happened in two parts: first, what happened around the match itself; and secondly, a wider look at the police role in relation to safety advisory groups and how decisions are made. We had been expecting that information before the end of the year, but it will be slightly delayed to take into account the recall of the West Midlands chief constable to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. We need to wait and see what the inspector says, and that is what we will do. That is the right thing to do, because these things will be considered in the round.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
This Government are determined to tackle all forms of hate crime. We have a robust legislative framework in place to respond to hate crimes that target race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The Home Secretary has also commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and fit for purpose.
Christine Jardine
I welcome the Minister’s comments, as I welcome the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, including the confirmation that the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will commence in April. We know, however, that misogyny runs deeper, and attitudes and actions throughout society and on social media are damaging to women. As well as focusing on prevention and strategy in all these areas and tackling harassment, will the Minister outline the position on misogyny becoming a hate crime?
Sarah Jones
A review is being undertaken by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, who is looking at hate crime legislation in the round. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that we want to wait for that, so that we can understand what those recommendations are before the Home Secretary makes decisions.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling misogyny, but I am sure that Ministers will be as disgusted as I am by reports over recent weeks of users of the social media platform X being able to create sexualised images of women, including children, through its AI tool, Grok. What conversations are Ministers having across Government to ensure that we clamp down on that vile practice, which should simply not be tolerated on social media sites?
Sarah Jones
The Home Secretary launched the violence against women and girls strategy. She, like my hon. Friend, takes this issue seriously. We are working across Government, in particular with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on this issue.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year.
Women are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crimes online, but that is no surprise when companies are promising that the purchase of a self-swab rape kit will deter rapists. That is plainly offensive and shifts the onus on to women and off the cowards who rape them. The kits are also inadmissible in court. We have already had a sexual assault of a child case collapse because of the use of a self-swab kit. For almost a year, rape charities have begged the Government to take action and ban these dangerous kits and their dangerous narratives. Will the Government work with me, support my campaign and commit to protecting women from self-swab rape kits?
Sarah Jones
The Home Office shares the concerns expressed by law enforcement and healthcare professionals about the use of self-swabbing rape kits, and are considering this matter very carefully. We always recommend attendance at a sexual assault referral centre to collect samples, regardless of whether a person decides to report an incident to the police.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Antisocial behaviour is a scourge that has gone untackled for too long. We are funding hotspot policing in our town centres and other areas in which antisocial behaviour is rife; that is having an impact. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will mean 3,000 more police on our streets by next March, will have an impact. We are introducing respect orders, which will be a really useful tool to tackle prolific antisocial behaviour offenders. The message has to be loud and clear: we will not accept this behaviour, and the police are responding.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Sarah Jones
Yes. I was really pleased that charges for shop theft increased by 25% in the year to June 2025, because the police are taking these issues seriously: they are really getting in there, working with our retailers, getting the prolific offenders and tackling the issue. I am always very pleased to meet.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right: 20% of offenders are responsible for 80% of crime. We need to ensure that repeat offenders are targeted, and that is what the police are doing. There is a raft of tools that we can use, but partnerships between the police and the retail sector are key. The number of shop theft charges has increased, but we need to look at other measures, such as treatment when people have drug addiction and other such issues. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Sussex police is one of the most underfunded forces in England, with the number of officers per resident 27% below the national average. Following the national decrease in police officers during the first year of this Government, will the Home Secretary commit to ensuring that police officer numbers go up in 2026?
Sarah Jones
I will just repeat the statistic: 94% of the fall in officer headcount in 2024-25 came during the last four months of the previous Government. Total funding for 2026-27 is £18.3 billion, which is a £746 million increase on the previous year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
For my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a crime is a crime wherever it takes place. Can the Minister set out what steps she will take to ensure that rural crime in my constituency and across Staffordshire is always treated with the same urgency as crime that takes place in our town and city centres?
Sarah Jones
We are supporting and working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on its new rural crime strategy, and we are working very closely with local police forces such as Thames Valley police, which has a rural crime team tackling these issues. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies everywhere, and all areas—rural or urban—must have the right number of people in their local community tackling crime.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
It is widely reported that the Home Secretary is a strong supporter of robust reform of the European Court of Human Rights. A large number of countries on the European continent share our concerns over that. Has she discussed them with any of her opposite numbers? In particular, where does she see the common interest in reforming the Court?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On 7 October the police told a private meeting that they planned to ban Israeli fans from Villa Park. That was, to quote the minutes,
“in the absence of intelligence”.
On 9 October they accepted that they needed to find a more clear rationale for the decision already made. On 16 October they said they suddenly found significant intelligence for a ban. That supposedly came from a conversation with the Dutch police on 1 October, before the first meeting held in the “absence of intelligence”. Does the Home Secretary believe West Midlands police—yes or no?
Sarah Jones
As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have asked His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to look at that and we are waiting to see what it has to say. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Did we disagree with the decision? Yes, we did. Do we want to get to the bottom of what happened? Absolutely, we do.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
In relation to the changes, announced at the end of last year, to indefinite leave to remain, my constituent Dr Matthew Hewitt advises on an issue relevant to his family and many other families across the country: that the information being put out by the Government is ambiguous as to whether or not the shorter five-year route will remain for those currently on partner visas, or whether the baseline changes to 10 years will apply to those currently on those partner visas. I would be grateful for some clarity on that, please.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that far too much resource is being spent on exceedingly heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests, which is likely to increase with plans to restrict protests based on their supposed cumulative impact, as planned in the Crime and Policing Bill?
Sarah Jones
No, I disagree with my hon. Friend on that. Policing protests is always a balance that we have to get right: we have to respect the right to protest, but we also have to ensure the police have the powers they need to tackle issues and ensure that protests can happen peacefully, as they have done for so many years in this country.
Provisional Police Funding Settlement 2026-27
Sarah Jones Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Total funding for police forces, including Counter Terrorism Policing, will be up to £19.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of up to £798 million compared to the 2025-26 police funding settlement. Total funding to territorial police forces will be up to £18.3 billion, an increase of up to £746 million compared to 2025-26. This equates to a 4.2% cash increase and a 2.0% real terms increase for police forces. For police and crime commissioners in England the council tax referendum threshold will be £15 for a band D property.
Funding for Counter Terrorism Policing will increase by at least £52 million to £1.2 billion in 2026- 27. Police and crime commissioners will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for Counter Terrorism Policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.
We will publish a police reform White Paper in early 2026 which will set out a vision to bring policing into the modern age with the technology, innovation and structures they need to ensure policing can focus on the crimes that matter to the public and to drive out waste and inefficiency. As with previous years, a copy of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27” will be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the new year.
An accompanying table that outlines policing bodies’ proposed total funding for 2026-27 can be viewed online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-18/HCWS1216/
[HCWS1216]
Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025
Sarah Jones Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will begin with the context in which we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. The life sciences industry is vital to this country. It provides crucial research, particularly in the medical sphere, and plays a central role in pandemic preparedness capabilities. The experience of recent years has demonstrated that that risk cannot be ignored, and we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.
The Government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150 billion in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.
Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the Committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.
The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.
Hon. Members may be aware of the Government’s recently published strategy setting out a vision for a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. We are absolutely committed to that goal, but at the same time we will not hesitate to fulfil our duty to protect the citizens of this country and our national health infrastructure and resilience.
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a Government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives. This instrument will aid us in that effort, and I commend it to the Committee.
Sarah Jones
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.
I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.
As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.
It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.
Rachael Maskell
It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.
My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.
The second element is protest and rights.
Kerry McCarthy
As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.
Sarah Jones
I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that
“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”
That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.
Irene Campbell
I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Sarah Jones
It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.
Sarah Jones
I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am a fierce defender of animal welfare— I always will be—and I believe that we are not moving quickly enough to phase out animal testing, but does the Minister agree that the pace is not what the draft regulations are principally about? They are quite tightly drafted Home Office regulations on the powers for police to respond to disruptive and illegal activity at our vaccine sites, which affects our pandemic preparedness.
We in Teesside have a Fujifilm facility near Stockton— the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West will know it well—and Teessiders were very proud to produce the vaccine there during the covid pandemic. As we phase out animal testing, we must not hamper that ability—that is what today’s debate is all about.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.
The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.
We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.
Olivia Blake
Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?
Sarah Jones
I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.
Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.
To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere
“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.
That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.
John McDonnell
Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.
Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.
There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.
Rachael Maskell
I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.
As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.
Sarah Jones
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.
Matt Vickers
When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?
Sarah Jones
Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.
Question put.
Knife Sellers Licensing Consultation
Sarah Jones Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
As part of the Government’s aim to halve knife crime within a decade, and in line with their manifesto commitment, the previous Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council knife crime lead, to conduct a review of online sales of knives.
The “Independent End-to-End Review of Online Knife Sales”1 was published on 19 February and made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of a registration scheme for sellers and importers of knives. The Government accepted the most important recommendations immediately, and this included legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill for stronger age checks for online sales and delivery of knives, and the reporting by retailers of bulk purchases of knives online. The Government also committed to launching a public consultation to explore whether registration for sellers, in the form of a licensing scheme, should be put in place for anyone selling knives, whether online or offline.
The consultation will launch today, and it will run for a 10-week period, closing on 24 February 2026. A copy of the consultation and related options assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on gov.uk.
1Independent end-to-end review of online knife sales: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-end-to-end-review-of-online-knife-sales
[HCWS1178]
Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board: Annual Report
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the annual report of the Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board for 2024-25. This report covers the national DNA database and the national fingerprints database.
The strategy board chair, Assistant Chief Constable Simon Wilson, has presented the annual report to the Home Secretary under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(8) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The report highlights the continued, fundamental value of DNA and fingerprints in the provision of vital evidence and intelligence to support police investigations and the criminal justice system in bringing offenders to justice, protecting and supporting victims, and preventing harm to potential future victims.
I am grateful to the strategy board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.
The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office and also on gov.uk.
[HCWS1142]
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the adequacy of the evidence on which West Midland police took decisions relating to the Aston Villa versus Maccabi Tel Aviv match.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Let me again acknowledge the concern and disappointment caused by the decision to ban away fans at Villa Park on 6 November. I recognise the continued strength of feeling in this House, and in the country more widely, and I welcome this opportunity to update Members on the latest developments.
The House will be aware that Chief Constable Craig Guildford, Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara and police and crime commissioner Simon Foster gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week. I am aware that Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara has since apologised for some of his remarks in relation to Jewish community support for the decisions taken. He will need to set out his correction to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee directly and we will await the Committee’s conclusions.
Any suggestion that the intelligence gathering and community engagement led by West Midlands police was anything other than of the highest standard would, of course, be a matter of profound concern. I am sure that the House will understand that I remain limited in what I can say about the specific intelligence underpinning this decision while investigations continue. However, in my evidence to the Committee last week, and to this House before then, I explained that the Home Secretary had already commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review how forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. That wider report will be returned to the Home Secretary by 31 March.
Before then, I can confirm that, by the end of the year, HMICFRS will also provide a specific update on the intelligence gathered by West Midlands police on this matter and how it was used. Operational independence is an important principle and one we must protect. At the same time, scrutiny and accountable are essential, especially when it comes to issues with clear implications for public safety and public confidence. It is absolutely right that West Midlands police are asked to explain as fully as possible how the decision was reached.
Sport is a source of joy and excitement for millions of people around the world. Football supporters should be able to follow their team, whatever their nationality, faith or background. That has been the clear and unequivocal stance of the Government throughout this episode, and it will remain so.
Nick Timothy
I thank the Minister for that response, including the news of the HMICFRS report by the end of the year.
The police intelligence used to justify the ban on Israeli fans from Villa Park has fallen apart, and so has the evidence given to the Select Committee by Chief Constable Craig Guildford and Assistant Chief Constable Mike O’Hara. The police say their information came from the Netherlands, after Maccabi Tel Aviv played Ajax last year, but the Dutch said the West Midlands intelligence report was “not true”.
At the Committee, the police repeated claims—denied by the Dutch—that the fans were “militaristic”, threw people in the river and targeted Muslim civilians. They even said that the Dutch police had lied under political pressure from their own mayor. We are asked to believe that the Dutch police lied to their own people, the media, their justice and security inspectorate, their mayor, their Government and even their King, but told the truth once in a Zoom call with West Midlands police that was never even minuted.
The police again claimed that the Dutch deployed 5,000 officers—a claim denied by the Dutch—but admitted to the Committee that they made up the number themselves. Asked whether a fictional match cited in the intelligence report came from artificial intelligence, Craig Guildford told the Committee “not at all”, but AI detection programmes conclude otherwise. The police have already had to apologise for wrongly telling the Committee that a local Jewish community had supported the ban.
There are many questions here, but I will limit myself to four. First, did the Policing Minister believe the evidence that the police presented to the Committee? Secondly, have the police replied to the letter she sent to them two weeks ago? Thirdly, will she guarantee the publication of all relevant information and correspondence? Fourthly, does the chief constable retain her confidence as Policing Minister and the confidence of the Home Secretary?
The police are accused of fabricating evidence to justify a predetermined outcome demanded by Islamists. They have had weeks to defend themselves and have failed to do so. This is fatal for public confidence in the police and in justice, and in my opinion the chief constable must go.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this urgent question. I know that he will have watched proceedings at the Home Affairs Committee with interest. Of course, it will be for the Committee to draw its own conclusions. As I said in my statement, it is right that the police clarify the latest reports that we heard over the weekend—through the pages of a newspaper, sadly, rather than proactively—on the situation regarding the engagement with the Jewish community and the conclusions that came from those conversations.
The hon. Gentleman will hopefully understand that I do not want to express judgment here when we have a very thorough process, which is ongoing, about the evidence that was gathered in order to reach the conclusion that was reached on the Villa match, and it is absolutely right that HMICFRS is looking at this matter. I know that the hon. Gentleman is frustrated—I can hear his frustration. However, it is right that it goes through that process and talks to whoever it needs to talk to in order to get to the bottom of the pros and cons of the evidence, both as the hon. Gentleman portrayed it and as West Midlands police portrayed it. We need to understand that.
I have been clear that if it is the case that there is anything other than the highest standard in terms of what we would expect, that is a matter of profound concern. It is clear that mistakes have been made in this process—not least with the fictitious match to which the hon. Gentleman referred—and I want to get to the bottom of what happened. I have also been on the record praising West Midlands police for things that it has done in the past, and I would not want to jump to conclusions. However, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will get to the bottom of this and that we will act accordingly once we have that information.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the police responded to me. Yes, they did. I think I can put that into the public domain, should he want to see it. He also asked whether we will publish the relevant documentation. Of course, we always want to publish what we can. The Home Affairs Committee has already asked some follow-up points from that sitting, and we will be very happy to provide that information. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I have confidence in the chief constable, which I was asked last week. I will repeat that I have seen some very good work in the west midlands across a range of issues, but we need to get to the bottom of this particular issue.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this matter is the question of the truth, and the question of whether the deliberation of the safety advisory group at Birmingham city council was compromised or prejudiced?
Sarah Jones
There are a number of questions we need to think about. The safety advisory groups were set up many years ago and in a different context, so it is right that we look at the way in which police intelligence and information are fed into those groups. That is the topic of the main piece of work that the inspector is doing, which will report by the end of March. The piece of work relating to West Midlands in particular will report by the end of the year.
The Home Secretary has asked officials to look at Louise Casey’s recommendation from 2021 that we signify certain events as “nationally significant” and then perhaps have a different model for how we take them forward. There is also a review going on in the Cabinet Office of the guidance for safety advisory groups. All those factors need to feed in together. Clearly, we need to look at whether we can improve the structures that exist for very large significant events—in this case globally significant.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this critical urgent question.
It is important not to forget the context of this decision. It came only weeks after the tragic events of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack. After the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to the Jewish people. He said that he would do everything in his power to guarantee them the security that they deserve. Yet when it came to a football club predominantly supported by Jewish people, they were suddenly deemed a risk to public safety. That is not just inconsistent but an insult to a community still reeling from a violent antisemitic attack. At a moment when Jewish families needed reassurance, this decision sent entirely the wrong message. It undermined confidence, contradicted the Prime Minister’s own promise and fell short of the duty we owe to the Jewish people to keep them safe.
Why was this decision taken? When the Minister addressed the House a couple of weeks ago, she said that the shadow Home Secretary was “jumping the gun a bit” in saying that certain pieces of intelligence were “just made up”. We now know that not only did imaginary matches somehow enter the intelligence picture, but officers giving evidence to Parliament were inaccurate about their dealings with the local Jewish community. That seriously undermines the integrity of this House and the vital work that police forces do in securing accurate intelligence.
The Government have asked HMICFRS to review the intelligence, but will the Minister go further and ensure that the details are made public? We need full transparency and more accurate accounts than we have seen so far, so that proper accountability can finally take place.
Sarah Jones
I remind the House that the Prime Minister’s view and the view of this Government is that the decision taken was the wrong one. The Prime Minister was very clear about that from the outset, saying:
“This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”
That is our view, as it has been consistently since.
We are trying to make sure that we can avoid such a situation happening again. HMICFRS will do its report in the normal way, and we are asking it to do so in two stages. One stage will include the information about West Midlands, and the second will take a wider look at how police information is fed into safety advisory groups. HMICFRS will do its report in the way that we would expect.
I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member about the harm that this has done. I am very well aware of it, and I have had many conversations with Jewish colleagues and organisations since this incident. I hope that we can put it behind us by learning the right lessons and making sure that we take appropriate action.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
As someone who has had the pleasure of working with the chief constable, I can say that he is a very considered man. Having said that, as an MP who represents the adjoining constituency, I was given absolutely no information about what was going on. Can the Minister assure the House that lessons will be learned and the appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that this does not happen again?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. She might not be the MP directly in the area but, as the Member for Erdington, she has a very close interest in this matter. The safety advisory group as constructed at the moment has a couple of councillors on it, so there was representation, but is that the right mix? This speaks to the wider question of whether, if there are issues of national significance, we need a different lens through which to view them. In answer to her question: yes, I will do all I can to ensure that we get to the bottom of what happened and learn the lessons in the appropriate way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This has been a sorry saga from the very beginning. First, we were told that the fans had to be banned for safety reasons. Intelligence reports, we were told, said that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were highly organised, skilled fighters with the serious desire and will to fight with police and opposing groups. That was false. Last week, the West Midlands assistant chief constable told MPs that the Jewish community in the local area supported the ban. This has now been found to be false, too, and he has rightly apologised. There are serious questions to be answered about West Midlands police’s handling of this decision, so will the Minister commit to support the setting up of any independent inquiries that are needed to get to the bottom this, in excess of what is already going on, if the answers are not found, so that anyone who is responsible can be held to account?
Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs in this country, the Government must reassure the Jewish community of its safety. Ministers assured me last month that the community cohesion strategy would be published when it was ready. Can they assure us that the Jewish community remains part of that process, and can they give us a concrete timeline for the strategy’s publication?
Sarah Jones
I very much hope that through the processes I have listed—the HMICFRS review into what happens to police intelligence and the advice feeding into safety advisory groups, the wider look at what is needed for events of national significance, and the Cabinet Office review of the role of safety advisory groups—we will ensure that we do not have a situation like this ever again. The hon. Gentleman asks what we would do if we did not get to the bottom of this, but I very much hope that we will. Of course I will come to this place and make sure that the House has all the information it needs to draw its own conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the community cohesion strategy, and we are working hard on that. In the wider context of how we deal with it when we know that large groups of people will attend protests, we are doing a wider piece of work that will help us navigate whether the existing legislation on protests is fit for purpose on a range of issues. For example, we have had significant concerns about antisemitism rearing its head at protests and we are working really hard with Jewish organisations to make sure that we get it right on that. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Something has clearly gone very wrong with the safety advisory group process in respect of Aston Villa, as the Minister, to her credit, has said from the start. I am particularly concerned by the apparent absence of clear decision-making processes, and of evidence and recording surrounding those processes, and I wish to know whether this is indicative of other decisions that might have been made by the respective police forces. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether, as part of her considerations, she is looking at new national minimum standards for the way that decisions are made and evidenced through safety advisory groups?
Sarah Jones
The Cabinet Office is updating the guidance on safety advisory groups and it is looking at exactly those kinds of issues. There is a wider point about the need to reference, account for and minute decisions when they are made and to record how they are made. We do that in government and we do it for a reason. It is because when we are questioned about our decisions, we need to have access to the right information about what was said, when and to whom. That is a wider question that I definitely take away from this episode.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister could share any correspondence she has with the Committee because we are keen to get full transparency on this issue.
Does the Minister share my incredulity that a decision that was so sensitive appears to have been taken on the basis of a single unminuted Zoom call between a West Midlands police officer and officers from Amsterdam, and that the exercise in social media scraping led the police to believe that a match that had never taken place could be cited in the evidence for the decision to ban the away fans?
Sarah Jones
Of course, the mistakes that have clearly been made played out in the evidence to the right hon. Member’s Select Committee. The mistake about that particular match does seem to be alarming, as does the subsequent apology.
On access to the intelligence and what was said and when, I know that the right hon. Member will find this frustrating, but I repeat that I want HMICFRS to go through its proper process and to come to a conclusion. It would not be right for me to base my conclusion on the evidence I have before me. It is absolutely right that HMICFRS looks at this matter thoroughly and comes back to us, and we will take whatever action is required afterwards.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Chris Murray, a member of the Select Committee.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her answers and her evidence at the Select Committee last week. It is shocking and deeply concerning that evidence from senior police officers at a Select Committee can fall apart within a week. This was a highly sensitive fixture, and this decision has had a significant impact on the Jewish community in the context of rising antisemitism. Policing in this country depends on the principle of consent and the idea that all communities are treated fairly and equally. I know that the Minister does not want to prejudge the outcomes of this specific case, but can she tell us her thoughts on the impact that this whole issue is having on the principle of policing by consent and on different communities in the country?
Sarah Jones
Policing by consent is the bedrock of our policing, and I think everybody across the House would agree with that—those Peel principles drive everything we want our police to do. There are a number of areas where that model of policing by consent has been tested in recent years, and public order and protest are a case in point. It is hard for the police, and I praise them for virtually every decision they make when it comes to public order. Most protests go ahead well and are policed well. There are good relations between the protesters and the police, and the routes are discussed, debated and agreed. The vast majority of protests happen in a way that we do not even notice because the policing is done brilliantly—there are some absolutely excellent police who deal with this. But when we get something wrong, of course the public question what is happening and question that confidence. That is why it is so important that we in this place do not jump to conclusions and that we get the right answers in a careful way, so that can give the right response.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing an urgent question on this important matter. Does the Minister agree that it is not only the Jewish community who have been seriously let down by this sequence of events, but all of us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and across Birmingham? Does she accept that it is not right to blame the SAG, which will always go—on the whole—with the police evidence that is put before that committee? That might well be an argument for looking again at the structure of how these decisions are taken. Does she also agree that this looks like a maladroit political decision rather than a policy decision, and does she understand that many local people are very disappointed in the role of the police and crime commissioner, who is supposed to stand up for local communities and has not done so in this case?
Sarah Jones
I was in Birmingham last week to launch our winter of action: police working in our town centres and closely with retailers and other organisations to stamp down on and prevent crime. I was with the police and crime commissioner, who is doing a good job in the policing of the community. For the 4 million people who go through the Birmingham Christmas market, it will be a lovely experience. I will not condemn anybody in this place. There are questions to answer, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s community, like everybody here, wants answers. We want to get to a point where we can celebrate the fact that Villa won at the weekend. That should be the only story in town, but unfortunately it is not because of this situation. We need to get to the bottom of it, and the Government will do so and respond appropriately.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When making these sorts of decisions, it is important to have several points of information. Can the Minister confirm whether UEFA was present at the safety advisory group meeting when the decision to ban Maccabi fans was taken, and, if so, what was its advice? More broadly, can she say what UEFA’s general advice is on banning any fans from any match?
Sarah Jones
As far as I am aware, UEFA was not in the SAG meeting. Of course, there would have been conversations with Villa, which ultimately had to make the decisions. It is a complicated decision-making process, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. The SAG sits to consider advice. The police give their evidence and opinion. The right hon. Member was right to say that, on the whole, the SAG will take the police advice, but there are other views in the room. It is then for the local authority to decide whether to allow the event to have the correct licence, and for Villa, in this case, to decide what that means and whether to allow fans to come. It is quite a complex picture. UEFA’s oversight of the whole league is important, but the decision about whether the event should go ahead was taken locally. We are trying to get to the heart of whether that is the right model for events of such national significance, or whether we should have a different model.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
This really is a catalogue of disaster, and it raises a range of issues, some of which the Committee will consider when we kick off our inquiry into major events tomorrow. In the previous Parliament, the Committee looked at the safety of sporting events and concluded that safety advisory groups have, at best, a fairly dubious record on seeking out and considering the necessary perspectives to inform better decision making. May I invite the Minister to look at our recommendations from a couple of years ago on amending the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 so that police and safety advisory groups have no choice but to engage properly from the outset on such cases?
When considering the competence of the West Midlands chief constable, might the Minister start by asking him to respond to his correspondence? The Select Committee wrote to him about the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, but we still have not received a response.
Sarah Jones
I will certainly look back at and read that report, which I very much welcome. It relates to some of the wider questions about nationally significant events and how SAGs operate. I am sorry that there has not been a response to the Committee; I encourage everybody to respond as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady is right to raise wider questions about how SAGs operate; we need to get to the heart of that.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
This quagmire needs much greater scrutiny, and to be brought out into the disinfectant of daylight. Let me repeat the question: why have no safety advisory group minutes been produced? How many times did the SAG meet on this issue? Will the Minister ask whether there was a UEFA representative at the safety advisory group meeting, and what their advice was?
Sarah Jones
I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question. As we mentioned at the Select Committee, how many times the safety advisory group was meeting was slightly unclear to us at the Home Office, because our relationship with the safety advisory group is through the UK football organisation. We were receiving information in a slightly ad hoc way, according to when we asked for that information, and that is one of the things we need to look at. Of course, I am very happy, as my hon. Friend is, to go back and ask questions about who was there.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
After hearing the Policing Minister, I am slightly incredulous. In her last reply to a perfectly reasonable question from her own side of the House about the roles of UEFA and the safety advisory group, she said she is happy to go back and ask questions. She said in her statement that the mistakes were “alarming”—that is the phrase she used.
This has been going on for weeks. The Minister has had a letter back from West Midlands police that she has not shared with the House before replying to this urgent question. She is saying that we will not have all the answers until the end of March, yet the Prime Minister is saying that this is a really high priority. Why is it taking so long to get simple answers on something that is of concern across the House?
Sarah Jones
I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman’s framing. We have been clear, and the Prime Minister has been clear, from the minute this decision was made that we believe it to be the wrong decision, and we worked tirelessly from that point to try to ensure that the match went ahead with the fans present. There was a weekend of activity to try to enable the match to go ahead in a safe way with whatever resources were required. There were lots of conversations across Government, and locally as well. Of course, Maccabi Tel Aviv then decided that they would not bring their fans, so the need for that process ended.
We then asked HMICFRS to look at this properly so that we can shine a light on what happened and what has gone wrong—we have been very clear about that, and it is completely right. I am not making up my mind on the hoof, but doing this through a proper process. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees it is a proper process. We are also looking at whether we need to change the wider structures so that an issue like this does not arise again.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is fairly clear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is right that this was a predetermined decision, and that the evidence was something for which West Midlands police scrabbled about later, but whatever the outcome of the Minister’s inquiries, whether it turns out, heaven forbid, that there was an antisemitic element to this or—in my view, more probably—that the police thought they would have a quieter life if they went down this road, will she guarantee to the House that whatever lessons are learned will be communicated in the strongest terms to the chief constables of all the other police forces so that they do not follow a bad example?
Sarah Jones
Yes, I can absolutely assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will learn whatever lessons we need to learn and take whatever action we need to take. Of course, that applies across all forces, not just West Midlands police.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of any representations made by UEFA in advance of this fixture?
Sarah Jones
I was not a party to conversations between Aston Villa and UEFA, nor was I a party to the decision- making process. The Government have no political involvement whatsoever in the safety advisory groups—we do not feed into that process at all. That is one of the questions we are looking at, because perhaps that is not the right model for the future.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Right across the political spectrum, I think everyone feels that this was a poor decision and a bad decision, which is why it has unravelled so quickly. Can the Minister reassure the House that there was absolutely no local political interference in making this decision?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot tell him the motivation for any of the decisions that were made. The Prime Minister’s clear view is that the decision made by the safety advisory group was the wrong decision and that we must ensure that this does not happen again. Safety advisory groups are local groups, with local representatives. The police advise those groups on the safety of events and a licence is then given for that event. Perhaps that structure needs to be looked at, particularly if there are issues of national significance, when there may be a role of national politicians. The operational independence of the police is really important and we have to make sure that we do not ride roughshod over that. That said, we also have to get to the bottom of what happened in this case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful answers. Last week, Chief Constable Craig Guildford told the Home Affairs Committee that the decision “was not taken lightly” and that the police had “taken a careful approach” when making the decision. Once again, I want to raise a concern about how this so-called “careful approach” made people feel and the message that it sent about exclusion. What assessment has the Minister made of the choice that was made and of the steps that should have been taken to ensure that all international football fans were treated fairly, based on correct evidence and information?
Sarah Jones
We have been very clear all the way through that we believe that the wrong decision was made. The message that it sent to the wider world risked being the message that Jews were not welcome in the west midlands; that is one of the most awful things that could be received by Jewish people around the world. We want to get to the bottom of why the decision was made and what we can do to ensure that this does not happen again.
Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies in Law Enforcement: Legal Framework
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are committed to giving the police the tools, clarity and confidence they need to keep the public safe in a fast-changing world. Facial recognition technology is one such powerful and effective tool, and the Government want to support its adoption with a clearer legal framework.
Over the past year, we have taken time to listen carefully to all sides of the debate about facial recognition and evaluate the available evidence. We have heard how this can be a valuable tool in tackling serious crime. However, we have also heard legitimate concerns about this powerful technology. There are questions we must address about the state’s powers to process its citizens’ biometric data proportionately, maintaining public confidence, and how we balance this with ensuring the police are able to utilise technology within a clear, easy-to-understand framework.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation titled, “Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies”.
The consultation seeks views on a wide range of issues, including which technologies should be covered by the new framework—such as biometric, inferential, and object recognition tools—and which organisations it should apply to. It also explores when and how these technologies should be used, what safeguards are necessary to protect privacy and other rights, and how to ensure their use is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.
Throughout the consultation, we hope to hear a broad range of views from the public, experts, and stakeholders to help shape a legal framework that will enable confident, safe, and consistent use of facial recognition and similar technologies at significantly greater scale.
This consultation will play an essential role in helping the Government design a framework that means law enforcement can properly harness the power of this technology while maintaining public confidence over the long term.
The consultation will run for 10 weeks and provides a valuable opportunity for the public to have their say. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1129]
FIFA Men's Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for the semi-finals and final of the FIFA men’s football world cup next summer, contingent on any of the home nations teams—England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—reaching those stages of the tournament. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises, and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.
Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 that would contingently extend opening hours for matches that kick-off at 9pm or earlier on the days of the semi-finals (14 and/or 15 July) and/or final (19 July), so that they would end at 1am at the latest—i.e. early in the morning following the match, rather than 11pm on the day of the kick-off in the UK—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales.
The extension would enable communities to come together to celebrate this achievement and support their national team, as well as provide a welcome boost to pubs and other on-trade businesses. The tournament will be held across several US states, Mexico, and Canada, which are 5-8 hours behind UK time, and matches could continue well into, or not kick off until, the early hours of the morning. In those cases, licensed premises will be able to use the temporary event notice process to extend beyond 1 am, should they wish to do so. The TENs process allows police to object or place conditions on a notice, thus ensuring additional safeguards for the public where venues may wish to stay open later.
The extension would be contingent on one or more of the home nations reaching those stages of the championship, and would not take effect should none of these teams reach those stages of the tournament.
I am seeking to use a contingent order to extend licensing hours for the semi-finals and the final to ensure that there is sufficient time to consult publicly on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk. The consultation will run until 15 January 2026.
[HCWS1130]
Catapults and Antisocial Behaviour
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate.
There is clearly a problem. It is not my job to defend the status quo; it is my job to consider what we can do about the problem. This debate has brought forward that problem in a good-natured way, setting out a number of ideas, which we can talk through today but need more thought. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), referred to existing laws, and the need to look at how they are implemented. Other suggestions, from this place and beyond, may also help. The starting point is that there is clearly a problem. Although the national data is not great on this subject, it appears to be a rising problem, as borne out by the Kent statistics.
I will say a couple of things about the broad approach to governing. Most of the public want police in their neighbourhoods, with the time and space to tackle physical crimes. The Government are working on a White Paper on police reform, which we hope will do exactly that. We are not only putting in more money—already bearing fruit in funding neighbourhood police in local communities—but looking at the time police spend on bureaucracy. Artificial intelligence can help to free up time, with new technology such as live facial recognition or drones playing a role, to enable the police to do what we want them to do.
We are also spending a lot of time on outlining plans for a national centre for policing, which could do what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) suggested: bring together national aspects of policing, so that local police can deal with the problems that face them. The hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne also talked at some length about the good youth engagement activities in his constituency, and pointed out the cuts to youth work. I think we would all agree that policing is one thing, but activities are very much another. We have a brilliant ambition for a 30% increase in the number of cadets by 2030, which would ensure that people are gaining skills, learning about being a good citizen and occupying their free time. Hon. Members will have examples of great youth clubs and sports groups, which we want to support where we can. Those are the two principles that I would start with.
The hon. and gallant Member described very vividly some of the injuries to wildlife, which are very upsetting. Concerns were also expressed about where that violence would escalate to over time. Something that is increasingly taking up Government time is thinking about people who are obsessed with violence. Where does it come from? How do we stem it? I suspect that people who are attacking wildlife are on some path that we would want to stop. Interventions at that point are necessary, too.
The hon. and gallant Member set out his arguments and made a very compelling case that we need to take this issue seriously. I was in a meeting just before the debate, and I said to those I was meeting that I was coming to this debate, and they said, “Oh, Dennis the Menace!” The hon. and gallant Member made exactly the same point. This is how people perceive catapults; that is not the nature of what is happening here. The letter he read out paints that picture very clearly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who I was pleased to meet recently, made very good points about the challenges in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey talked about the urban nature of this problem, and the churches and high streets that have been damaged. This is clearly a problem that is affecting a number of areas. We heard that from Northern Ireland as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about TikTok and the role of social media, and this strange new habit that seems to be to commit these violent offences and put them on social media, which is obviously also very worrying.
In terms of what the Government want to do in response, as I set out, reforming our police so that our police can do what we want them to do and they can implement the legislation that is already there because they have more time is a major priority. That is, in part, about funding neighbourhood police and making sure that we tilt resources in that direction. It is also about freeing up people’s time, so they can get on and do what they need to do.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, made the sensible point that there is no point in having legislation just for the sake of it, but there are some changes that we do want to see. As we heard, Spelthorne borough council has a PSPO that includes catapults. That is a really good thing. The Crime and Policing Bill will increase the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for breaches of PSPOs to £500, which gives some more power to that function. People have mixed views about PSPOs—some work; some do not—but making sure that they have teeth is important.
Tackling antisocial behaviour generally is a big priority for this Government, and we are doing that in a number of ways, one of which is being much more savvy when it comes to data—looking at hotspot policing and targeting policing in the areas where crime occurs the most. For that to work, we have to have people reporting crime. So please can the message to all our constituents be: “Do report any crime you see; report it online if that is easier.” We are being increasingly sophisticated in the way that we are responding to crime, and data drives that. If we do not have the data, it makes it harder.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister raises a really important point about data. I say the same whenever I am out in my constituency doing Q&As—report, report, report—but there is always a reticence from my constituents, who say that they feel like they are reporting all the time, then they never hear back from the police and they are not sure where the information goes. Also, when they are talking about antisocial behaviour, there is always a concern that it is going to come back on them and they will be identified as the people who are actively reporting these crimes. Can the Minister provide any advice for those constituents who feel anxious about consistently reporting and feel like they are being a burden or a nuisance?
Sarah Jones
They are very much not a burden or a nuisance; they are doing their civic duty, for which we are very grateful, and we encourage them to continue to do so. Reporting is absolutely key. I have had similar conversations to the ones that she and, I suspect, all of us have had, particularly when things have gone on for a very long time and people feel there is no point in reporting any more. We now have in each neighbourhood a named officer, who is your person, and you can contact that person. That will hopefully make it a bit easier for people to get in touch.
Crime can be reported online. We would not always want people to ring 999; there are lots of different ways to report crime. As we go on, there need to be better ways to do it. We need to have apps and technology that help people to do things simply when they are reporting, for example, repeat behaviour. Even though it is difficult, and I understand the case made by the hon. Lady in terms of people feeling nervous, the best result is for the people who are committing the crime to be stopped, and they will not be stopped unless the police are there to intervene.
Lincoln Jopp
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?
Sarah Jones
The hon. and gallant Member is absolutely right; people can, and I would encourage them to do that.
Respect orders are part of the legislation that we are bringing in. We do not have time to get into this because I want to let the hon. and gallant Member wind up at the end, but respect orders will have a place in terms of repeat antisocial behaviour offenders. We will introduce them in the Bill, pilot them and roll them out. It will be a tougher measure in terms of tackling antisocial behaviour more widely.
On the hon. and gallant Member’s point about whether we should expand the age group eligible for community protection notices, he said that it was a way of intervening without criminalising children, but he also said that, if they breach it, they are then criminalised. The question is: what is the most effective way to get people out of that kind of behaviour? Is it to criminalise them at that point, or is it to intervene in ways that might be more effective, as he said in other parts of his speech?
Of course there need to be consequences, and there is the issue of whether we should list this as a banned weapon. We looked in our meeting at the list of weapons that are banned, and there is a strange mix of slightly peculiar weapons that clearly have been an issue at some points in time. It is an interesting list for people to look at. That is one aspect, but as a Minister who has been in post for less than 100 days, I want to look at this issue more. There is clearly a problem, and we need to consider how we tackle it.
Thames Valley police were mentioned by name. I was with Thames Valley police recently, and they have massively reduced hare coursing through the use of really effective policing. They are using gators—these vehicles that zoom around the country—and drones to see where the hare coursing happens and get there, so I can reassure people that, when the police put their mind to it, they can do incredible things, despite the challenges. I am therefore optimistic that we can tackle this problem together.