Crime and Policing Bill

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 11 but proposes Amendments (a) to (d) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 265D to 265H.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 342, but does not insist on its Amendment 342A in lieu and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment 342.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 359 and 439 but proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendments 359 and 439.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House last week—of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As for those four, we have again listened carefully to the points raised in the Lords and tabled further amendments in lieu.

Let me turn first to amendments 2D and 2E on fining for profit, tabled by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to those concerns, and hon. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments making clear that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 may, among other things, address the issue of the proportionate issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons for breaches of community protection notices and public space protection orders. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson in the other place said that discretion to issue such guidance was not good enough, and that there should be a duty to do so. The amendment in lieu now provides for just such a duty. I hope this will persuade hon. Members that the Government are committed to addressing this issue.

Turning to the question of fly-tipping, the Government again recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Our recent waste crime action plan has set out our zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean-up effort. On the specific issue of vehicle seizure powers, I want to be clear that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. However, to further support local authorities, we have tabled an amendment in lieu that makes clear what the statutory guidance on fly-tipping should cover. For example, it must include advice on collecting strong evidence against the offender that can help to secure a successful conviction and advice on what action can be taken, including the seizure of vehicles.

Local authorities are the lead agency for tackling fly-tipping, and it is right that they lead on enforcement, so the power to seize and dispose of vehicles used in fly-tipping properly rests with them. The police already have general powers of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item is evidence in relation to an offence. That power can be used to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping. Where the police seize a vehicle, they would be expected to liaise with the local authority, which would then take action to dispose of that vehicle. As such, Lords amendment 11 seeks to close a gap in the law that, in practice, just does not exist.

I turn next to youth diversion orders. We were disappointed by the Lords’ decision last week to reject the Government’s amendment in lieu, which was tabled in response to Baroness Doocey’s amendment 342. Baroness Doocey raised concerns regarding the lack of a requirement for police to consult organisations beyond criminal justice services, flagging that this missed an opportunity to legislate for consultation with other agencies such as health, education and social services.

We respectfully disagree with Baroness Doocey that her amendment would directly respond to the recommendations made by Sir Adrian Fulford in his recent report on the horrific Southport attack. Multi-agency engagement will be critical to the success of these orders, which is why the Bill already includes a duty on the police to consult youth justice services. In England and Wales, this will be through local youth offending teams, which are multi-agency in nature—they include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as is underpinned in statute by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They may also extend beyond those mandated agencies to include child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services. We are therefore confident that youth diversion order applications will be made following consultation with a wide variety of agencies, and will benefit from the expertise of those agencies in working with young people.

Baroness Doocey also raised concerns regarding the police’s consideration of alternative interventions. The statutory guidance, which will be developed by the Home Office and laid before Parliament for scrutiny ahead of publication, will include guidance on alternative interventions that police may wish to consider instead of, or alongside, a youth diversion order.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Minister is using words such as “may”. What she has outlined is incredibly important, but Lords amendment 342 obviously goes further than “may”—it insists that diversion orders will involve those necessary consultations. Will the Minister commit today to making sure that the police will have all these statutory duties, not just that they may have them, and that the consultation will be required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I will explain what we want to see as we go forward. It is important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making its decision, and that will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that being said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu that builds on the previous Government amendment. It offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations, and we hope it addresses their lordships’ concerns.

The amendment in lieu extends the list of considerations that the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider as part of a youth diversion order application to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others, beyond the youth justice teams mandated in clause 174 of the Bill. That will extend to applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order. It will go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than there simply being a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that with these changes, the Liberal Democrats will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment.

Lastly, Lords amendment 359 relates to the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Opposition seek to return to this issue yet again. Successive Governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section 3 has been met. To suggest, as the amendment provides, that the Government should review every organisation related to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent is simply not a serious proposition. To help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section 3 of the 2000 Act.

Before I conclude, let me briefly explain Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role-playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content that mimics child sex abuse and risks normalising such horrific conduct. The Government amendments agreed in the Lords clarify the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. That will ensure that the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts.

I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. It is entitled to ask this House to think again. On each of these four issues I am addressing today, we have already done that once.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, as always, for her hard work. In the other place, Lord Weir of Ballyholme highlighted freedom of speech in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. Within the Bill coming forward tonight, there is a fine line in terms of the expression of belief, such as through street preaching. Does the Minister believe that the legislation will ensure that people in this Christian nation can publicly speak the word of God in every corner? Some of us believe that it cannot. Can the Minister confirm that, please?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place.

Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

It was very well said, but it is also important that my constituents are heard in the fight against fly-tipping and keeping our communities safe, clean and green.

When the Minister winds up, I hope she will provide confirmation to Members of the House and to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that strengthening the statutory guidance on enforcement, including the use of vehicle seizure powers, will help councils. This is important because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme will be voting in the Newcastle district borough council elections on Thursday 7 May, and I really hope that people in my community vote for the excellent Labour candidates on the ballot paper that day. It is also important because we need our councils to take tougher, more visible action against the fly-tippers who blight our communities. I hope the Minister will provide that confirmation when she winds up, because it is important not just to me, but to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Sarah Jones]

In the interests of transparency, Madam Deputy Speaker, my glasses are reading glasses, but they also happen to be sunglasses. I will try not to put them on, but my eyes are beginning to go. I do not want to pretend to the House that I am trying to be cool if I put on my glasses; it is just so that I can read the words in front of me.

I want to start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this short but very interesting debate on a wide variety of issues. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I realise she has only just started her speech, but what I did not do in my speech was pay massive tribute to the Harlow Wombles. They are not little creatures from Wimbledon, but representatives of the Harlow community who go out week in, week out to collect rubbish in their local community. I want to thank them for what they do to ensure that our local community stays clean and tidy.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We all thank the Harlow Wombles for the work they do. I do not think we have Croydon Wombles, but we probably need to get some. We do, however, have many very good people who go out and collect rubbish, like my hon. Friend in Harlow.

All three Back-Bench speeches showed the strength of commitment from our 2024 intake in this place. They are debating the issues that matter to local people and which are important. The Government are already taking action on all fronts, and the Bill will help us to tackle the scourges of everyday crime that my hon. Friends touched on.

Turning to the four issues before us today, I am disappointed, coming first to fixed penalty notices, that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is not persuaded. Lords amendments 2D and 2E amended the Government’s amendment that allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance addressing the issue of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The amendments specify that the guidance must, rather than may, address that point. The Government have had many conversations on that, both with our colleagues in the Lords and in this place, and I hope those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench recognise that engagement.

We believe that a provision for private companies to collect and support the Government and local government in their public spaces protection orders and other such measures is fundamentally important to ensure that people abide by the rules of the land. The Government brought forward an amendment in lieu to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must, as opposed to may, address the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons, so I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would recognise that that is going some distance and I am disappointed that they have not on this occasion.

We have had many debates on fly-tipping in this place, and we inherited from the Conservatives a shocking situation where it was not seen to be the serious crime that it is. As a consequence, many of our communities are blighted by it, and my hon. Friends have talked about it in this debate. I am disappointed that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) continues to argue for Lords amendment 11. I hope he accepts that the police are not the lead agency for enforcing all criminal offences. They work in partnership with the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, the Environment Agency, the Gambling Commission and many others, including local councils in their guise as waste authorities.

The police do have the powers to remove a vehicle. In fact, when I was out with the police in Kent only last week, we seized a vehicle because a crime was being committed. Four young men were in a car that was not properly insured, so the men had to get out of the car and we took it away. We were very glad to do so, although the men were not very pleased. It is within the police’s power to stop a car if a criminal offence is occurring and to take that car away.

[Matt Vickers]

Of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in the country every year, how many does the Minister think end in the seizure of a vehicle?

[Sarah Jones]

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

[Matt Vickers]

rose—

[Sarah Jones]

I will give way in one moment.

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

[Matt Vickers]

I will explain more than that. I was delighted to put forward an amendment in Committee proposing just that, and the Ministers sat on either side of the Minister—the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, the hon. Members for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) —voted against penalty points for that offence. I do not think the Minister heard me when I asked this question before: how many of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in this country does she think result in the seizure of a vehicle? In a year’s time, when we come back and have this discussion again, how many does she think will have been seized?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

More than under his Government.

[Sarah Jones]

I suspect, as my hon. Friend says, that there will be a lot more than were seized under the previous Government. This Government encourage our police and local authorities to investigate any crime, and to ensure proper punishment. That is why we are introducing this very substantial piece of legislation, which also increases the punishment for a whole raft of criminal activities.

Many people are profiting from fly-tipping and making it their business; perhaps they are doing a house clearance, and want to avoid paying fees to get rid of the furniture, so they just dump it on our streets. It is right that we encourage our local authorities to ensure that those people are punished, and that, where necessary, we crush their vans, rather than just taking them away, so that they can never be used by those people again. That is what we are keen to do. That is why my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet have prioritised tackling fly-tipping in all its forms, from very small to very large cases. We have organised criminal gangs fly-tipping across the country, leading to vast fly-tips; this Government will fund their removal, through the legislation we are bringing in.

I move on to youth diversion orders. Again, I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats do not feel that they can support our further amendments in lieu. We have further strengthened the provisions in the Bill in respect of statutory guidance, which must now expressly address the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for chief officers to consult persons other than youth offending teams before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order. This squarely addresses the concerns raised in the other place. We do not feel that we need to go as far as the other place suggests. I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have not listened to us today, and that they feel it necessary to continue to push the issue.

Returning to the fourth issue that we are debating today—the proscription of the IRGC—it is a long-standing principle, adopted by successive Administrations, that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. It would violate that principle if we mandated the Government to review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations. The shadow Minister knows that that is the case. The Government cannot support Lords amendments 359 and 439.

[Matt Vickers]

Was the Foreign Secretary wrong when she said that the IRGC must be proscribed?

[Sarah Jones]

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

[Matt Vickers]

rose—

[Sarah Jones]

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

[Matt Vickers]

No, we aren’t!

[Sarah Jones]

We are now.

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

Question put.

Police Federation

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) on his career in policing, on everything he shared with us and on securing this debate. The start of his speech was incredibly powerful, and reflected what I hear often from our police both in my incredibly privileged position as Policing Minister and in my constituency role in Croydon.

I have heard of many cases, such as that of a police officer in Croydon who had to hold the wound of someone who had been stabbed while they waited for the ambulance. The trauma of that side of the role is there loud and clear for everyone to see, but there is also cumulative trauma from all the other things that have to be done, from how the police are sometimes treated and from how they feel that they do not necessarily have the support of Government or the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe described that well, and I cannot do it better.

Tomorrow, I will spend the day trying to be as incognito as possible while going around with a neighbourhood police officer. I will spend the whole day on a shift and hear as much as I can about the lived experience of being a police officer. I am sad not to have done that before this debate, but I am looking forward to it very much. However, my hon. Friend made a powerful speech and, as I think all other Members in the debate have said, the police do a brilliant job and we should not underestimate what they do. We should thank them, never forget what we ask of them and always do right by them.

Within that context, the Government are trying to reform policing to enable the police to do the job that they came into the service to do, whether that means ripping away the bureaucracy of a lot of the tasks that the police are given—historically, we have not invested in new technology and pieces of kit—or putting police back into our neighbourhoods, so that we can do the things that the public want us to do without public frustration at the lack of response. Of course, the biggest police reform in 200 years is looking at the whole structure within policing. In that context, police officers still have to get on with their job; they not only have a difficult job, but have quite a lot of change heading their way. We need to respect that.

In the middle of all that is the Police Federation, which has an interesting role. A lot of Members have said the same thing: on the one hand, the police do a brilliant job, and a lot of the fed reps do a brilliant job, but on the other hand, something is clearly wrong with how the federation has been functioning. We have talked about this before, but since I became the Minister in September I have seen the fed every two weeks and we have a catch-up. Most of the conversations are about what we are doing on the transformation journey, what has happened and what is coming down the line. I think that it is fair to say there has been frustration, such as about the 33 recommendations for changes needed in the federation made by Baroness Bousted in her review. The change is not coming in the way that people expect, as fast as people want, or in a way that we would expect.

Government have a role, but we do not have quite the same relationship with any other organisation; we have a statutory responsibility. The legislation states:

“There shall continue to be a Police Federation for England and Wales for the purpose of representing members of the police forces in England and Wales, and special constables”,

and that in fulfilling that purpose, the federation

“must…protect the public interest…maintain high standards of conduct, and…maintain high standards of transparency.”

Our obligation as a Government to ensure that those things are happening is set in law. Clearly, therefore, we take the question of whether those functions are fulfilled in the way that they should be very seriously.

It is no secret that we have been frustrated, as have many others, at the pace and scale of change. Of course, we saw arrests that came in the middle of this conversation as well, which have made things very difficult. We were very explicit about this in the White Paper on police reform. We said:

“We expect to see clear plans and…demonstrable improvement”

in the fed’s operation. We also said:

“In the absence of such improvements, this Government stands ready to bring forward reforms to ensure that the interests of rank-and-file officers are properly, effectively and robustly represented.”

Given the arrests since the publication of the White Paper, it is very hard for the federation to give us the reassurance that we need, because of everything that has happened. We are continuing the conversations with the federation. There is a lot of interaction between officials in my Department and the fed, and we are sharing data and information, and talking these things through.

I do not think that anyone can pretend that the status quo is an option. It is not. This Government stand ready to do the right thing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), asked what we are considering. I am not in a position to say what the next steps look like, but clearly matters have moved on and we need to ensure that there is proper representation for rank and file. The judicial review, as well as the criminal investigation, means that there is a limit to what I can say.

I very much welcome this debate and the contributions to it. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind remarks and I will see the Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) talked about what she and the police in her community need, and she said that she is supporting the campaign. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about the importance of mental health.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), talked about the challenges for women members of the fed in particular, which is something that is very live to me as well. I have attended several meetings in which I have talked about the issues that arise if a police officer is, for example, in a relationship with another police officer and there is domestic abuse in that relationship. What we do in that space is very difficult; there are lots of challenges there.

I thank everybody who has attended this debate, including the shadow Minister, for their thoughtful comments. I think that we all know that there is a problem and I recognise the frustration felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe, because he wants to see movement. We are looking at this issue very carefully. We are very mindful of the arrests that have happened, very mindful that we have not seen the pace of change that we want, and very mindful of our legal obligation to make sure that the rank and file have representation.

Crime and Policing Bill

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 263.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 263, and Government amendments (b) to (g) to Lords amendment 263.

Lords amendment 361, and Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment 361.

Lords amendment 2, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 10.

Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 15, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 15.

Lords amendments 256 and 257, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257.

Lords amendment 258, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258.

Lords amendments 259 and 260, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260.

Lords amendment 264, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264.

Lords amendment 265, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 265.

Lords amendment 311, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 333, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333.

Lords amendment 334, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 339, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 342, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 342.

Lords amendment 357, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 359, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372.

Lords amendment 439, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 505, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 13, 14, 16 to 255, 261, 262 and 266 to 299.

Lords amendment 300, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 301, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 302 to 310.

Lords amendment 312, and motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 313 to 332, 335 to 338, 340, 341, 343 to 356, 358, 362 to 367, 373 to 438, 440 to 504 and 506 to 532.

[Sarah Jones]

I am delighted to see the return of this Bill—the largest criminal justice Bill in a generation—to this House. The Bill will support the Government’s mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade, and give our police and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to tackle antisocial behaviour, sexual violence, terrorism and online harms. The amendments made in the House of Lords support these aims.

Given the number of Lords amendments, I will focus my remarks on the Government amendments made in response to commitments given on Report in the Commons last June by my predecessor as Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson)—she was sitting on the Front Bench earlier—before outlining the Government’s response to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) rightly raised concerns about the depiction of strangulation and suffocation in pornography, an issue which was also highlighted by Baroness Bertin’s independent pornography review. As set out in our violence against women and girls strategy last December, the Government have announced our intention to criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images that depict strangulation and suffocation, and Lords amendments 261 and 262 give effect to that commitment.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly pressed the Government on when we would deliver our manifesto commitment to make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence. I am pleased to commend Lords amendment 301, which extends the existing racially and religiously aggravated offences to cover hostility based on sex, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) pointed to the long-term impact, including on employment opportunities, for those convicted of the offences of loitering and soliciting while under 18. Lords amendments 270 and 271 therefore introduce a new disregards and pardons scheme for anyone convicted or cautioned as a child for those offences.

I will now turn to the 19 non-Government amendments added in the other place. First, Lords amendment 2 seeks to bar the issuing of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The Government do understand the concern about enforcement agencies issuing fixed penalty notices where there may be a financial incentive to do so. To be clear, local agencies are expected to issue fixed penalty notices only when it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. However, Lords amendment 2 risks weakening crucial enforcement action to tackle antisocial behaviour. Our amendments in lieu instead provide that statutory guidance will address the need to ensure that the issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons is proportionate.

On Lords amendments 6 and 10 to 12, I fully appreciate and understand the damage that fly-tipping can do to our communities. The Government’s waste crime action plan, published on 20 March, sets out proposals to radically improve enforcement in this area, including by granting courts the power to impose between three and nine penalty points on the driving licence of those convicted of fly-tipping where driving a vehicle was used in or for the purposes of the offence. Our amendment in lieu implements this commitment.

Turning to Lords amendment 15, on its introduction the Bill provided for a maximum four-year prison term for those convicted of a new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. While this was drafted in line with other possession offences, the Government accept that the intent element of this new offence justifies a higher maximum penalty. Our amendment in lieu therefore provides for a seven-year maximum rather than the 10 years provided for in the Lords amendment, which we believe is disproportionate given that this remains a possession offence.

Lords amendments 255, 256, 258 to 260 and 505, introduced by the Government and by Baroness Owen and Baroness Bertin, all seek to further tackle the proliferation of demeaning and degrading intimate images online. The Government share these aims, and we are clear that intimate image abuse is completely unacceptable.

Lords amendment 255, brought forward by the Government, will criminalise the making, adapting and supplying of nudification tools. These tools use artificial intelligence to create deepfake, non-consensual intimate images, many of women. While creating, sharing and threatening to share non-consensual intimate images is already illegal, this amendment goes further, and criminalises the developers making and supplying these tools. As well as the criminal duties, once this new offence is in force the requirements of the Online Safety Act 2023 will kick in. This means that social media services will be required to take down content that supplies nudification tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked to these tools.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I am not sure whether she will come on to this, but the Government have tabled amendments on online safety, and have identified that the next frontline in this war is artificial intelligence. As she knows, we have already seen children taking their own lives after interactions with AI chatbots, and we know that tech companies will always prioritise profits over user safety, so there must be more focus on a safety-by-design approach that prevents AI products that could be harmful to users from coming to market. This approach has been suggested by Baroness Kidron in the other place. Why are the Government not supporting her amendment?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is, of course, right about the growing concern around chatbots and the need for safety by design. I will come on to Baroness Kidron’s amendment and the Government’s response to it later on in my speech.

Furthermore, the Government have brought forward Lords amendment 367 to take a power to extend the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 to cover unregulated AI chatbots. It means that general-purpose AI chatbots, such as Grok, which allow the creation and sharing of non-consensual intimate images, will have to proactively remove that illegal content from their services or face enforcement from Ofcom. Taken together, the measures will deliver an effective ban on nudification tools. Given that, we do not believe that a separate possession offence, as provided for in Lords amendment 505, would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are accessed online, rather than possessed.

Where a person is convicted of an intimate image offence, we agree that it is vital that those images are deleted from the perpetrator’s devices. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 258 enables the courts to make an image deletion order following a conviction for an offence related to intimate image abuse. Breach of the order will be a criminal offence. The amendment also enables the courts to require the deletion of other intimate images of the same victim. This approach gives courts the required flexibility to consider the details of each case when applying their powers, while ensuring that the offenders are held accountable for compliance with the order.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I really welcome the Government’s amendment on image deletion orders, which will ensure that after a conviction, courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images and film. They will be able to give prison sentences, too; that is incredibly important. Does the Minister agree that this, coupled with the Government’s new requirements for tech firms to delete this horrifying content when it is found, is a crucial step forward in ensuring that non-consensual intimate imagery victims can finally move forward with their life?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her. This is the culmination of a lot of good work in the Lords and the Commons, from Members of all parties. MPs have pushed as hard as we can on this emerging technology, which is so dangerous and so high risk, and we have a Government who are committed to acting and doing the right thing. Everybody has worked really hard, together, to get us to a much stronger place. The power allowing courts to require the deletion of intimate images will also be available for the offence of breastfeeding voyeurism recording, and the new offence of sharing semen-defaced images.

Online platforms need to do more to ensure that non-consensual intimate images are removed quickly, as my hon. Friend said, and not after the 24-hour timeframe envisioned by Lords amendment 256. To that end, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 256 and 257 strengthens platform and senior executive accountability by making it a criminal offence for a service to breach an enforcement decision by Ofcom on duties to deal with and remove reported non-consensual intimate images. That means that senior executives of the service could be criminally liable for the breach. As well as taking this enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will also bring forward regulations under existing powers in the Online Safety Act to amend schedule 8, so that Ofcom can require providers to be fully transparent about both the speed of intimate image removals, and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

These provisions are so important. The main thing that witnesses who came before the Women and Equalities Committee said, when talking about the impact of non-consensual intimate image abuse, was that the harm grew and grew, the longer the images stayed online. This measure is vital, and I thank the Government for listening to the Committee’s important work.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the Women and Equalities Committee and its work. As I said, this has been a journey, and a lot of Members from both Houses have played a really important role. Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office have been listening very carefully to what MPs have been advising. I am very pleased that we were able to respond.

In addition to bringing in the take-down duty, we will give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual intimate images. Amendments (a) and (d) in lieu of Lords amendments 259 and 260 will enable the Government to designate a trusted flagger, most likely the revenge porn helpline. That will give Government backing to a trusted source of NCII content that can be used by platforms and internet service providers to identify those images. The amendments will also enable the Government to make further provisions, by regulations, on the operation of the register, following a scoping exercise. Those provisions include provision for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes, and other information deemed necessary, with the register. Hashes, for the benefit of the House, are unique codes used to mark non-consensual intimate images. The scoping exercise will allow us to evaluate the technical requirements, so that we can ensure that the register can be used by victims, platforms and internet service providers to remove or block NCII content. As Lords amendment 260 recognised, proceeding by regulations will enable us to properly evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure that the register operates as effectively as possible.

Turning to two more amendments from Baroness Bertin, Lords amendments 263 and 265, I think we in this place all share her determination to stop the spread of dangerous, demeaning and illegal pornographic content online. On Lords amendment 263, I completely agree that there is a need to curtail the depiction of step-incest pornography, in cases where what it portrays is illegal. The Government’s amendment in lieu will extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest porn to include depictions of step-incest where one of the persons is portrayed as being under 18. Additionally, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 265 addresses the concerns raised by Lords amendment 265 by criminalising the possession or publication of pornography that depicts an adult credibly role-playing as a child. That makes it clear that content that mimics and risks normalising child sexual abuse will not be tolerated. But we will not stop there. As well as introducing those offences, the Government have committed to producing a delivery plan for how we can close the gap between the regulation of online and offline pornographic content. What is illegal offline should be illegal online.

Lords amendment 264 rightly raises concerns about how we best strengthen safeguards against the sexual exploitation of persons appearing on pornographic websites, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft on Report. We agree with the principle and the need to address this issue, but further work is required across Government on considering what the most effective approach would be to strengthening arrangements to ensure that persons appearing in pornographic material are aged 18 and over, and consent to the material being shared online. Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of Lords amendment 264 place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the outcome of this work within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and introduce a power to make regulations giving effect to that outcome.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for reassuring us that these amendments have a timescale of 12 months. What are the Government doing behind the scenes to progress this work as quickly as possible? Can she outline the work that she has undertaken to ensure that the regulations are introduced within those 12 months?

[Sarah Jones]

There is a powerful group of Ministers working very hard on that. Not least among them is my colleague in the Home Office, the Minister for Safeguarding, who is leading the wider work on violence against women and girls. There is a whole programme of activity, whether by Ministers or officials, across DSIT, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we get these things right. They are complex, and they involve Departments working together, stepping up and taking responsibility for this work, which is very much ongoing. We want to get this right; that is why we have set the 12-month timescale. The important thing is not only the outcome of that work, but the power to make regulations, as we will, that give effect to that outcome.

Lords amendment 311, introduced by Lord Walney, seeks to grant a power to the Secretary of State to proscribe organisations deemed to be extreme criminal protest groups. The Government understand the concerns expressed in both Houses about the sustained impact of criminal activity by certain protest groups, and, where such conduct meets the threshold for a proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government will act, and have already acted. However, we are not persuaded that the introduction of a proscription-lite regime is necessary or proportionate in instances where that threshold is not met. This view is shared by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who recently expressed concerns about the adverse consequences of this amendment for the established proscription regime in the Terrorism Act 2000. I urge hon. Members to read the four-page note that he published online last week.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will recognise, though, that many of us are concerned about the integrity of the concepts of terrorism and terrorist organisations, and the importance of people’s ability to protest the concept of proscription. Those are two very different things. Does she recognise that concern, and will she look at how we can better delineate those two things, so that people can express their concerns about the concept of proscription and how it is evolving under this Government without facing arrest for wanting to have that conversation?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend will have debated these issues in this place, and I think there will always be a debate about the right to protest and where we draw a line in this country. I am very happy to have further conversations with her on that wider issue. Jonathan Hall set out in his letter—I can pass it on to my hon. Friend, if she has not seen it—why he does not think that this amendment will work, and that is why we are not persuaded on this occasion. I am, of course, happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend on this.

Turning to Lords amendment 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe, I fully agree that the Government, local authorities and law enforcement agencies need to do all they can to tackle money laundering and associated criminality on our streets. The high streets illegality taskforce, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her most recent Budget, will examine the use of enforcement powers in this light, including the closure power. It will have a £10 million budget to support its work. While we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we should first consult to avoid any unintended consequences on legitimate businesses or residential premises. Accordingly, amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333 will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and, if necessary, to make different provision for commercial and residential properties.

I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), have been campaigning on high street illegality, and will no doubt speak about it later. I want to assure them and others in this place that we know that we need to go further, as we will, not just on this measure, but on the wider challenge of high street illegality. We will be very keen to work with Members in this place on that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Despite the current legislation, in Northern Ireland, not only individuals but Sinn Féin Government Ministers engage in acts and make speeches on an almost monthly basis that not only glorify but encourage terrorism, praise those who took place in bomb attacks on police stations and individuals, and, indeed, name play parks after those individuals. Does the Minister accept that the current legislation does not rule out the possibility of people engaging in acts of glorifying terrorism, which not only impacts the people of the past but poisons the minds of young people in the present?

[Sarah Jones]

I appreciate the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, and I know that DUP Members of Parliament in particular have raised these concerns before. The challenge here is that Lords amendment 357 would remove the historical safeguard for statements that glorify acts of terrorism committed by proscribed organisations. Our view is that these statements may not necessarily create terrorist risk and may result in the offence capturing legitimate political and social discourse and debate.

I will say two other things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, strongly advised against the removal of the historical safeguard in his review of terrorism legislation following the 7 October attacks in 2023. Secondly, in the light of the concerns that have been raised in the Lords and by Members in this place, the Government will ask the independent reviewer to conduct a more detailed review of the encouragement offence within six months of Royal Assent.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 359. It is a long-standing principle that has been adopted by successive Administrations that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. Mandating that the Government review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations would violate this principle and tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily. The Government are already taking decisive action to deter threats from Iran, and we have committed to introducing a new state threats-based proscription tool.

I turn now to Lords amendments 360 and 368 to 372 tabled by Baroness Kidron, which concern chatbots. The Government are clear that we need to act quickly to bring all unregulated AI chatbots within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s requirements on illegal activity. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are seeking to take a regulation-making power to do this, under Lords amendment 367. By taking this power, the Government will be able to remove any ambiguity over whether services like Grok are subject to the Online Safety Act’s provisions to tackle illegal content. This approach also allows us to design regulations that are effective, targeted and informed by necessary consultation with subject matter experts. Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 372 commits the Government to reporting to Parliament by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I don’t mean to bang on about this, but the fact is that the Government’s approach is too narrow. It is focused on taking down illegal content when it should be the responsibility of the company to prevent harms in the first place, rather than to deal with them after the event. We do not design any other sector’s regulation in this way. When designing aircraft, we do not wait until after the plane has crashed to worry about any of the safety features. This should be the same.

During Report stage in the Lords, peers voted overwhelmingly in support of the safety-by-design approach. They also understood that when it comes to the design of something, harm includes building in aspects that are addictive and manipulative, which have been key to some of the very tragic suicides of children who have interacted with AI chatbots. What do the Government have against building safety by design into the very purpose of AI chatbots?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady makes her case very clearly, and we can agree that we need to design out those kinds of issues. The challenges are in what we do and how we do it—those are the challenges we had with this particular group of amendments. Obviously there is wider work being done on violence against women and girls and how the Online Safety Act is to be rolled forward, and that work is really important, but we are talking about this particular group of Lords amendments on chatbots and the challenges with them. That is why, through amendment (a) in lieu, we commit to reporting by the end of the year on our progress to develop regulations.

We are clear that regulation is a more effective and proportionate tool than the criminal law for addressing risks from AI chatbots and setting industry best practice. Incorporating currently unregulated chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act will ensure that such regulation applies extraterritorially, which is crucial when dealing with international companies.

The Government’s approach is also broader in scope than the content of amendments 360 and 368 to 372. Those amendments would not capture image generators creating non-consensual graphic images of women or online AI chatbot toys such as Gabbo. The Government’s amendment in lieu does capture such services and allows them to be clearly brought under online safety regulations.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has heard extensive and at times horrific evidence of the harms that AI chatbots can do, such as encouragement to suicide. I welcome Lords amendment 367, which gives the Government the power to amend the Online Safety Act, and I accept that the Government are seeking to reject amendment 368, tabled by the noble Baroness Kidron, to ban chatbots based on their content, but does the Minister accept that the harms of AI chatbots are evident, significant and hugely concerning, and that their regulation is unclear and consistent? Where chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act, if those chatbots incorporate, for example, search functionality, enforcement is slow and ponderous or non-existent. Will the Minister commit to working with DSIT to take action on AI chatbots before the end of the year?

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee has done and will continue to do in this space. It is very important that we have good analysis of what the problems are that we need to solve. She is absolutely right that the problems with AI chatbots are evident, significant and concerning, and that more work needs to be done in this space. If there is work that we can do sooner rather than later, I am sure that my colleagues in DSIT will do that, and I commit to working with them to do what we can as quickly as we can.

Finally, hon. Members will recall that on Report, the House decided to disapply the criminal law relating to abortion in respect of women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Their Lordships agreed amendment 361, which would provide for automatic pardons for women previously convicted or cautioned for an abortion offence in relation to their own pregnancies and for the deletion of certain details from court and police records.

I stress that the Government remain neutral on the substance of clause 191 and Lords amendment 361, but we have a duty to ensure that the law is operationally and legally workable. Accordingly, we have tabled amendments (a) and (e) to Lords amendment 361 to ensure that the deletion of details from relevant official records can operate as intended.

[Catherine Fookes]

I support Lords amendment 361 because some women, even after being found not guilty, have investigations that show up on their Disclosure and Barring Service checks, which impacts their life and future careers. That is the reality for a young woman named Becca, whose case I raised in the House a year ago. She was investigated at age 19 after giving birth to her son at 28 weeks, and she says that removing the investigation from her records would help her to be able to move on and live a proper family life. Does the Minister agree that this change will help to bring justice for women like Becca?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the challenge that Becca has faced, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done in bringing that to the House. The Government are neutral on this part of the Bill, as is right and proper. What we seek to do with our amendments is ensure that it is legally workable. That is our role in this space.

I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who I suspect will speak to it later. I agree that in many cases honour-based abuse is perpetrated not by a single individual but by an extended family or other group of persons. The challenge we have with the amendment is that the definition in the Bill adopts the usual legislative conventions whereby references to the singular include the plural unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, the statutory definition already applies where abuse is perpetrated by more than one person. However, we do want to develop the statutory guidance so that that is completely clear for everybody.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will remember our discussion, and I hope that she can help me. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC was appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime. The review was also to consider the laws around protest, and we were hopeful that we would have that. I am not aware that the review has concluded, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us. If it has not concluded, why are we legislating before that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know feels strongly about this issue, as do many others—I very much respect that position. I met him a few months ago, when the review had just started. The review has yet to conclude, but it will do so in the coming months. The work that Lord Macdonald is undertaking is quite substantial, and I know, having received updates on what he is doing and who he is talking to, that it is wide and is taking a bit longer than expected, but that is in order to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will know that the cumulative disruption amendment was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. Perhaps we will come to this more in closing the debate, but I think there is a lack of understanding in some quarters—I do not mean my hon. Friend—about the nature of that amendment. To be clear, sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 empower senior police officers to impose conditions on processions and on public assemblies respectively. They can impose conditions only under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption. We are not changing sections 12 or 14. At the moment, the police can consider cumulative disruption when looking at whether a protest should have conditions imposed on it.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her response to my letter on cumulative disruption, signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter states:

“I have no desire to infringe on—

[Kim Johnson]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that a future Government might be less benevolent towards workers’ struggles and could exploit those powers? Will she please explain to the House why we have not been given the right to debate, discuss and vote on amendment 312?

[Sarah Jones]

Let me just finish explaining what we are doing and then I will come on to picketing.

If there is a risk of serious public disorder, senior police officers can impose conditions. At the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption as one of the aspects they take into account when deciding whether to impose conditions. To be clear, imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can work under or limiting the number of people. They can already take into account cumulative disruption, but we are changing that so that they must take that into account—they must think about it. That does not change the guardrails of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; it just says that at the moment they can consider cumulative disruption, but in future they will consider it. That is the amendment.

On this Government’s belief in the right to strike and to protest, of course that is sacrosanct and nothing has changed in our view on that. We do not believe that this legislation will stop the right to picket. I know that lots of Members will have views on that and will not be satisfied, but we will always defend the right to strike, and we have absolutely no desire to infringe lawful picketing at all.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm, both on the Back Benches and outside Parliament, at what amounts to a further draconian attack by the Government on the right to peaceful protest, which is a civil liberty, and about the fact that the Government are trying to push the measure through without a proper vote for MPs, as they did when they made the huge error of proscribing Palestine Action?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. This was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack, when lots of protests took place immediately after the attack. The cumulative disruption and the impact that had was there for all to see. We have no desire to reduce people’s right to protest, and nor would we ever. There is a lot of misinformation about this change in the law, implying that we are in some way increasing the bans on protest. To be clear, the rules on banning protests are very strong, and bans can be introduced only in very significant circumstances. Indeed, we have no rules to ban assembly, so the idea that we are banning protest is just wrong.

We are responding to communities who have recently been feeling the pain of repeated protests, sometimes outside faith organisations—synagogues, in particular. In those cases, we believe that the police should look at the impact of cumulative disruption when they, and not the Government, are deciding whether to impose conditions on those marches.

[Ms Creasy]

Many of us recognise the picture of pain that the Minister is painting, especially following the terrorist attack, but good legislation requires debate, scrutiny and specification. One of the concerns that many of us have is the lack of definition of “cumulative”. Will she set out now, on the record, what the Government intend by the concept of “cumulative”, so that people can understand how this proposed test would be met?

[Sarah Jones]

I am pleased that we are debating this issue today, which is what we should be doing here, and I am sure that hon. Members will be talking about it more in the several hours that we have to debate these issues. This already exists in law, in that the police are able to look at cumulative disruption when considering whether to impose conditions. We are not redefining “cumulative” at all, or changing the parameters of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; we are simply saying that when the police are looking at whether to impose conditions, they must look—rather than they can look—at cumulative disruption. That is a small change that will make a big difference to people who are currently scared and intimidated by persistent protests, outside mosques and Jewish places of worship in particular.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I should conclude. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have sought to engage constructively. As I have said, I urge the House to support all the changes that we are suggesting together today with the Government amendments brought from the Lords.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank colleagues in the other place for the work that they have done on strengthening this Bill. The changes made there go some way towards what we should all be aiming for: safer communities, stronger laws and real protections for the public. In Committee, we saw the Government repeatedly reject important amendments from Opposition Members, on fly-tipping, pornography and increasing sentences for knife crime. The Bill could also have provided a real opportunity to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes, to support this country’s tradesmen with real action on tool theft, and to remove yet more knives from our streets by increasing stop and search. Although the Government failed to take up some of those opportunities, I am delighted to see that they have U-turned on some of the measures that Labour MPs previously voted against. That might be a familiar pattern, but it is still right to welcome the fact that they have recognised the value of some of those proposals.

On fly-tipping, for example, giving courts the power to issue penalty points to offenders is a straightforward, common-sense step. If someone uses a vehicle to dump waste and blight our communities, it is entirely right that their ability to drive should be affected. Likewise, even though I would have liked the Government to accept the more significant penalty proposed in Lords amendment 15, it is a welcome step that they have recognised the seriousness of the crime when there is an additional element of intent to use unlawful violence, which rightly should have a greater penalty when compared with possession-only offences. It is right that these measures have progressed, even though a great deal of unfortunate wrangling and rejection occurred before they were incorporated into the Bill.

On that note, I will turn to the proposals that the Government have chosen not to accept from our colleagues across the way. I ask Members of this House to give serious consideration to measures that enhance the powers of the police forces and improve their ability to keep our communities safe. For instance, as I have mentioned, Members do not need to be reminded of the scourge of fly-tipping, as we all recognise the adverse impact it can have on our neighbourhoods. On Sunday I saw an appalling incident in my constituency. A huge volume of waste had been dumped near Sadberge, with appalling consequences for our environment, for wildlife and for anybody who wants to enjoy the countryside.

Amendment 6 would ensure that the guidance issued on the enforcement of offences under section 33 makes it clear that, when a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they will be liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from that offence. As the Government are already setting out guidance in the legislation, why would they not ensure that this guidance was unequivocal that when a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they—not the victims—are responsible for the costs incurred as a result of their offence? Furthermore, amendment 11 would further enable the police to seize vehicles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was very brief indeed, when the hon. Member had such a huge amount of time. I call the Minister.

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome the broad agreement across the House with, I think, the great majority of the Lords amendments, particularly those brought forward by the Government. Those amendments further strengthen the powers of the police, prosecutors and partner agencies to tackle violence against women and girls, online harms and hate crimes. We have sought to engage constructively with the non-Government amendments carried in the Lords. As I set out in my opening speech, in many instances we support the intent behind these amendments and our concerns are about their workability, not the underlying objectives. In that spirit, let me turn directly to some of the points raised in the debate.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), seeks to disagree with Lords amendment 301. Let me be clear: this is not a move by the Government to police lawful speech, and these provisions do not criminalise the expression of lawful opinions. Extending the aggravated offences does not create any new offence. This amendment extends an existing aggravated offences framework, which operates in relation to race and religion, to cover additional characteristics—namely, sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability and sex.

This framework applies only where specific criminal offences—offences of violence, public order, criminal damage, harassment or stalking—have already been committed and where hostility is proven to the criminal standard. This is not about creating new “speech crimes”; it is about ensuring that where criminal conduct has taken place, and that conduct is driven by hostility towards a protected characteristic, the law can properly recognise the additional harm caused.

That is an important distinction. Freedom of expression, legitimate debate and strongly held views remain protected, but where someone commits an existing criminal offence and does so because of hostility towards a person’s identity, it is right that the criminal law should be able to reflect that seriousness through higher maximum penalties. The hon. Member for Stockton West is simply wrong if he thinks that the same end can be achieved through sentencing guidelines. It is about equality of protection, not the policing of lawful speech.

I will now come to measures debated on the epidemic of everyday crime. Lords amendment 333, on closure powers, was raised by a number of hon. Members. I want to pay tribute to the dodgy shops campaign being run by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt). I agree wholeheartedly with their aims. If we do not tackle dodgy shops, it is very hard to do the wider work of bringing back our high streets. I completely share the concerns raised about the rise of illegality affecting so many of our high streets. It is for exactly that reason that the Home Office has established the cross-Government high streets illegality taskforce, which will be backed by £10 million a year for the next three years—£30 million in total. The taskforce is already working at pace to develop a strategic long-term policy response to money laundering and associated illegality on our high streets, including other forms of economic crime, tax evasion and illegal working, and to tackle the systemic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. The initiative was announced in the 2025 Budget and, as I said, is supported by significant funding.

Strengthening the closure powers available to local partners in tackling criminal behaviour on the high street is part of that mix. Our amendment in lieu accepts that and will enable us to go ahead and do it. The push from my hon. Friends is to do that at pace. We will of course work as fast as we can on the consultation on closure orders that we have agreed to do. I hear the message loud and clear that we need to go fast, but the purpose of the consultation is to ensure that we get this right—that we make the distinction between private and public property, and the complications that might come from that.

[Matt Vickers]

The Chartered Trading Standards Institute and many of the agencies responsible for dealing with this issue talk about the need to extend—or potentially extend, depending on how tonight goes—not only orders, but notices. That is the 48-hour window, or seven days if we go with this amendment, so that papers can be put in place and the dodgy shops, as the Minister put it, do not have the ability to reopen before the order can be put in place. This does not seem to appear in the amendment in lieu. Will she be looking at notices, as well as orders?

[Sarah Jones]

We are already, on the face of the Bill, extending the time to up to 72 hours. The point of the notice is to enable the time to get to court and apply for a closure. We are providing the extra time to do just that. We are also extending the powers to registered social landlords, so that they can also be part of that. We are already taking action. Of course, we will always keep these things under review. We will always consider what is said to us—even from the Opposition Front Benches—but the amendment today deals just with closure orders, and we have committed to consult on that.

[Matt Vickers]

The alternative Lords amendment—the pushback from the Lords—relates to notices and orders. The reason there is a problem with the 72 hours for notices is that, because of court sittings and how that all falls, we end up not getting the order in place, and these shops, which the agencies have jumped through the hoops to close down, get to reopen. I do not think the Chartered Trading Standards Institute or many of the agencies dealing with that would agree with the 72 hours. I ask the Minister to go further still and to perhaps look at the seven days being put forward by the Lords.

[Sarah Jones]

Through our taskforce, which is funded with £30 million, we will look at a whole range of opportunities on what we can do. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the reason we have a situation where people are money laundering and using illegal shops in many different ways on our high streets is because the previous Government failed to do anything about this growing problem, but we have introduced money and action to tackle it. We will also be tackling the huge challenge we have with our high streets more widely, which was left to us by the previous Government, by introducing a high streets strategy, which we will bring out in the summer.

We are also dealing with the fact that neighbourhood policing collapsed under the previous Government, which has meant that the epidemic of everyday crime is not being tackled as it should be—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not give way again on this point. We have already delivered 3,000 additional officers and police community support officers on to our streets and into our neighbourhoods—an 18% increase in neighbourhood policing since we came to power.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that when the Conservatives left government, we left 3,000 more police officers in post than when we came into government?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not know how many times we have to rehearse this: the previous Government cut police numbers by 20,000 and decimated neighbourhood policing. They then had a sudden change of heart and said that they would replace those 20,000 police officers, who were recruited with such haste that several forces, including the Met, have sadly—

[Matt Vickers]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I am just in the middle of a sentence. Several forces have sadly recruited people without the proper vetting processes that should have happened. By the time the previous Government left office, they had recruited the 20,000, but how many of them are sitting behind desks? Twelve-thousand of them are. If the right hon. Lady thinks that is where those officers should be, that is fine, but we believe that our officers should be in our neighbourhoods, which is what we are ensuring.

We are also getting rid of the burden of bureaucracy, built up under the previous Government, that wastes so much police time. In the next couple of years we will free up the equivalent of 3,000 full-time police officers just through use of new technology, AI and new processes will bring this ancient system, which lots of police officers are still working under, into the modern age.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady seems to have missed my point completely, even though it was quite simple. Does she not accept that when the Conservatives left office, there were 3,000 more police officers than when we took office? Does she not also accept that her Government and her police and crime commissioners, such as Simon Foster, are actually cutting police stations as well as officer numbers?

[Sarah Jones]

I accept that there were more officers—not by population, but in terms of actual numbers—when the Conservatives left office than when they took office. [Interruption.] But let me ask the House about something else that happened: by how much did shoplifting rise in the last two years of the Conservative Government? It rose by 60%—

[Matt Vickers]

It’s higher now!

[Sarah Jones]

The rise is much slower and the charge rate has gone up by 21%. Clearly, action is more important than numbers, and this Government are taking action. That is why, for example, the shoplifting charge rate has increased by 21%.

Many Members have spoken about fly-tipping. I absolutely accept the strength of feeling on fly-tipping. I think it is repulsive, and most of our communities are affected by it. Whether it is the large fly-tipping in our rural communities that is driven by serious organised crime or the everyday fly-tipping that we see in our cities, we need to do more to tackle it. The Government have published the waste crime action plan, which will make a substantial difference to how we approach waste crime, including the Government paying for the removal of the most egregious sites. In parts of the country we have seen reports in the press of huge waste sites.

We are also committed to forcing fly-tippers to clean up their mess. Under this Bill, people who use their vehicle to fly-tip will potentially get nine points on their licence. That goes further than what the Opposition had previously suggested. So we are acting, as we should. We did not agree with the Lords amendment that proposed that local authorities should have to clear all sites, including private sites, because of the very significant costs that would be required to undertake that. We do not think that can be put on to local authorities just like that. But I assure hon. Members across the House that we are taking significant action on fly-tipping and we will continue to do so.

[Matt Vickers]

Can the Minister tell me why the Government are opposing the Lords amendment that would allow police officers to seize the vehicles of the vile criminals who fly-tip in communities across the country?

[Sarah Jones]

There are already powers for the seizure of vehicles, and that is already happening, including in my area. Vehicles can be seized and crushed, and I think we should be doing more of that, not less, when it comes to antisocial behaviour.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who spoke about Lords amendment 361 and our amendment to make it legally sound. As I said, the Government do not have a view on this, because it is an issue to do with abortion, and it would not be correct to take a view on that. She asked when it would come into effect, and I can tell her that it will apply as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Obviously, decisions on particular cases up until that point are for local police, but I heard what my hon. Friend said.

I want to touch on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) about aggravated offences. Building on what I said to the Opposition spokesperson—

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

He is a shadow Minister.

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, he is a shadow Minister—I am very happy to give him his correct title.

Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth said. She spoke about aggravated offences relating to disability, trans and sex, and bringing those into line with the existing aggravated offences. That will support victims, and not just in terms of potential sentencing and justice; it will mean that victims can access more support, which I very much welcome, and I am glad that she does too.

Turning to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the issue of the glorification of terrorism—oh, I see he is not in his place; I will come back to that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has been doing so much work on a number of different areas, not least all of the Lords amendments that relate to porn. She gave a really powerful speech about how pain for women is increasingly perceived as equalling pleasure for men, and she spoke of the need to tackle that in many different ways, because sexualised violence online can become violence in real life. I am glad that she welcomed the step-incest amendments, which are absolutely right, as well as those on people trying to look like children, which she called “barely legal content”. I heard her message about proactively verifying age and consent and about bringing in the timetable to deliver that as soon as we can.

My hon. Friend also talked about honour-based abuse. We understand and agree with her, as well as other hon. Members who raised the importance of realising that often it is not a single crime but involves a whole group of people. We need to ensure that is clear in all the training done on identifying and responding to this form of abuse. Therefore, alongside the statutory guidance, we are developing additional free learning modules for professionals who work with victims and perpetrators of honour-based abuse. That includes a general module as well as dedicated modules on multi-agency responses. Together, those modules will strengthen statutory professionals’ ability to recognise the signs and to manage cases appropriately and safely in practice. I hope that is reassuring to my hon. Friend.

I turn to Lords amendment 312, which many hon. Members spoke to. There are a number of things to say on our cumulative disruption amendment. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who talked powerfully about his position, which I respect. I agree that protest and the right to protest is part of the lifeblood of the Labour movement, and that progress is rarely—if ever—handed down without first having been campaigned for. I understand his concern, and the concern of everyone in the House, that we balance the right to protest with the impact of protest. We have had many debates on that in this place over the past few years.

The Home Secretary asked Lord Macdonald to review public order legislation and hate crime legislation, because we have had lots of different pieces of legislation and there is a need to take a holistic look at that to see whether it is right. Lord Macdonald has not reported yet; he will do so within a few months, and we very much look forward to what he has to say. I hope that when he does report we can consider his recommendations in this place and discuss all his findings together.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Given what she has just said, would it not have been wiser to await the outcome of the review, so that we could have seen Lord Macdonald’s view of the entire scene before taking yet further legislative measures that will move the dial even further? Would that not have been the right course of action?

[Sarah Jones]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point, which we have discussed before. As he knows, the announcement that the amendment would be made was given by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack and the protest that followed. It has not come from nowhere; it has been debated and suggested by policing colleagues for some time. The Government’s view was that this Bill is a vehicle we could use to introduce this legislation, and that we should take the opportunity to do so. I know that he disagrees with that decision, but we made it because we feel this is a necessary step, given the situation in which we find ourselves.

I want to be really clear again about what the amendment does and does not do. Marches can only be banned in very, very specific circumstances, as happened with the al-Quds march recently—the first time a march had been banned since 2012. The amendment will make no difference to that whatsoever. It will make no difference to what march can and cannot be banned. An assembly cannot be banned at all, as there is no legislative basis for that, so again, the amendment will make no difference at all.

It already is the case, and it has been since 1986 when the Public Order Act was introduced, that the police can consider cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions on a protest. A condition could be the time that the protest is allowed to take place, the route that the protest can go down or the number of people allowed on that protest. Since 1986, the police have had the ability to consider cumulative disruption when they look at whether they should impose conditions. The amendment means that they have to look at and consider the impact of cumulative disruption when they look at imposing conditions.

[Apsana Begum]

I note what the Minister has just said—she said the same to our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—that she derives the assessment of cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act 1986, in that the police must, rather than can, consider cumulative disruption. However, the definition of “cumulative” does not exist in the law as it stands; indeed, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 creates a definition of “cumulative disruption”. Will the Minister clarify where else in the law does that definition already exist, because it is not in the Public Order Act?

[Sarah Jones]

My point was that the basis of cumulative disruption has been in the law from the Public Order Act 1986. In terms of the definition, the police use their discretion on the definition—that is absolutely the case—and they have done so since 1986, when they were able to consider that.

I will say a couple of things on that basis. The police have to balance the rights of freedom of assembly and speech that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights—they have to do that. When they are considering what they do with protests, they have to balance and consider those rights, and if they are going to impose conditions, that has to be done under specific areas, which might be serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. When and if this Bill is passed and we move forward, I will commit to working with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make sure that the guidance is as clear as it can be. However, the definition of cumulative disruption is just its natural meaning, and the police have had that power since 1986.

[Andy McDonald]

May I trouble the Minister one more time?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes.

[Andy McDonald]

Just on that, if she is going to consult with the College of Policing and others, where is the role for this House to have its voice in that discussion? There are many people here who would like to positively input into that discussion.

[Sarah Jones]

The role of this House is to debate, which is exactly what we are doing now. I listened, for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who talked about his experience with the Metropolitan police in recent times and his sense that he had lost confidence with the way that they were making decisions on protests. I hear all those things and am happy to have more conversations. I am sure that the police would be happy to as well.

I will just say—this does not have an impact on anything that I think about what the law should be on protests—that there has been a 600% increase in the number of protests over the last couple of years. There has been a huge increase in the number of people protesting and the physical ability of the police to just deal with that in terms of resources is not insubstantial. They spend a huge amount of time on this, as we all know, and our neighbourhood officers are often abstracted. That is right and proper—I am not suggesting otherwise—but it is a challenge for the police, particularly in the big urban parts of our country, to have to manage the impact of these protests.

To repeat, the cumulative disruption amendment does not change the guardrails of the powers to impose conditions. It does not change anything about the need to balance the right to protest in the European convention on human rights with the Public Order Act. None of those things will change. What is changing is that we are saying that the police will consider cumulative disruption, rather than that they can consider cumulative disruption.

[John McDonnell]

I think it would be really helpful if the Minister brought the guidance before the House at some stage, once it is completed, so that we could have some clarity about it. There will be protests in the future. A third runway at Heathrow has been threatened again, and there will be a cumulative impact of protests in my constituency. I want to know if I will have to hand myself in at some point in time as a result of that.

[Sarah Jones]

I cannot tell whether my right hon. Friend will have to hand himself in at some point in time. I think probably not, but I can remember debating that particular issue when the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he was going to lie down in front of bulldozers. We have debated these issues on protests many, many times. Guidance does not normally come to this House for approval. That would not be appropriate. I need to stress that the police take the definition as it is, in terms of its natural meaning, but I take the point. The point is that we need to ensure that we get these things right, and I will work with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on getting this right. I would also ask the House that, when Lord Macdonald has looked at this plethora of emerging legislation, we should consider that and look at what he recommends. Of course, if he recommends that we accept changes to the law, we will debate those things in the proper way in this House if we introduce that legislation.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Can I just seek clarity from the Minister? If Lord Macdonald comes forward with recommendations to go back in the opposite direction, will the Government then consider those and remove the restrictions they are currently proposing?

[Sarah Jones]

We do not know what Lord Macdonald is going to recommend. He has terms of reference that we have agreed, which are to look at public order legislation and hate crime legislation and to consider whether it is fit for purpose or whether it needs amending. Of course, we will consider carefully whatever he brings forward and we will act according to what we think is right. He is a man of great note who has done a lot of things in his past—he is a former Director of Public Prosecutions—and we will of course listen to whatever he says.

[Max Wilkinson]

The Minister seems to be arguing that there is not very much to see here, and that the difference is between “can” and “must”. Is there evidence that when police are having problems policing protests at the moment, they are not assessing the cumulative impact and the problems that that causes?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, and that is why we are introducing this amendment; we want to provide clarity that it should be considered. We have a community—in particular, the Jewish community—who are suffering and afraid, and they have spoken to us and to many people many times about the impact of cumulative protests outside places of worship and other places. We are responding to that. This is one change in the grand scheme of public order legislation, but it is a very important one for that community.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Earlier, she said that the right to protest was sacrosanct in this country. My understanding of the definition of “sacrosanct” is that it describes something that is too important to be trifled with. In making this argument, the Government are suggesting that the right to protest should be trifled with, and that the police must do more to restrict the right to protest, aren’t they?

[Sarah Jones]

This Government believe in the fundamental right to protest. We will never change our view on that. It does have to be balanced with the responsibility to look after our communities. This Government are seeking to get that balance right. We are making a change to the cumulative disruption legislation through this Bill, which we brought forward in the Lords, and several Members asked about that. Of course, normally legislation is introduced here, but amendments are introduced in the Lords by Government and have been by this Government—it is not uncommon. We have had an opportunity to debate the issue today, and I have listened carefully to all the speeches that hon. Members have made.

[Apsana Begum]

I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Because it is Lords amendments, I want to get full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. If I may borrow the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for dead children just over a year ago, would it be seen as unnatural or natural if he were to lay down in front of Heathrow runway? What would happen? Is it the expectation that the police would determine what is cumulative, as the Minister said it would be the natural definition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As I have said, the police have had the power to consider cumulative disruption since 1986. If right-wing protesters were protesting every day outside a mosque, that would be my definition of cumulative disruption. The police balance every day the powers they are given from the laws we pass. We are increasing the training that our public order police officers get. We are ensuring that they have access to the right training and resources because that was a problem identified under the previous Government. We are trying to clarify through this piece of legislation that cumulative disruption is an important factor and should be considered when the police consider whether to impose restrictions on protesters. To repeat, we are not banning protests; it is about the imposition of restrictions, and that is all.

The other place has properly asked this elected House to think again about a number of issues. Let us send a clear message back to their lordships: we have listened and agreed a number of further changes to the Bill, but after some 14 months of debate, it is now time for this Bill to complete its passage, so we can get on with the task of implementing the Bill and making all our communities safer.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 263.

Amendments (b) to (g) made to Lords amendment 263.

Lords amendment 263, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments (a) to (e) made to Lords amendment 361.

Lords amendment 361, as amended, agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Clause 4

Fixed penalty notices

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Sarah Jones.)

Knife Crime

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Before I come to the statement, I want to echo the Home Secretary’s words yesterday following the publication of the Southport attack inquiry report. That was a truly sickening crime, and my thoughts, and those of everybody in this place, are with the families, victims and everyone who was affected.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. That commitment, made in our manifesto, is rooted in recognition of a tragic truth: in too many places, a deadly cycle has taken hold, as fear and violence feed off each other, leaving people—and especially young people—feeling that they have no choice but to carry a weapon to stay safe. In the most devastating cases, that results in the loss of lives that have barely begun.

All that is wretchedly familiar to the House and to me. We know it from the long list of tragedies about which we have spoken with families across the country. We hear it in the anguished words of bereaved parents, whom many of us have met after fatal stabbings in our constituencies. We see it when we look at our children, whose safety is too often the cause of worry and sleepless nights. In these and so many other ways, knife crime is destructive and devastating, and has for too long been plaguing communities and destroying lives.

The task of putting that right falls to this Government. Since the general election we have acted decisively to deliver a response that matches up to the scale of the threat, implementing bans on zombie-style knives, zombie-style machetes and ninja swords; restoring neighbourhood policing to the heart of our communities; getting more than 63,000 knives and dangerous weapons off our streets; ramping up action against county lines gangs to record levels, with over 2,700 lines shut down last year; setting up the coalition to tackle knife crime; and legislating to deliver the toughest crackdown yet on online knife sales. The concerted effort that we have mounted, alongside our partners in the coalition, law enforcement and communities across the country, is having an impact. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime is down by 8% and knife homicides are down by 27%, to the lowest level in a decade.

Together, we are making progress, but it is not enough. Knives are still being carried, stabbings are still occurring and lives are still being lost. Indeed, there have been several fatal cases in recent days and weeks, and I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies to the victims’ loved ones. For them, for all the families out there whose world has been forever changed by knife crime, and for the country as a whole, we must do more, and we are doing more.

We have published the “Protecting lives, building hope” plan, which details the action that the Government are taking and will take to further reduce knife crime and, ultimately, achieve our goal of halving it in a decade. The plan outlines activity and investment designed to drive progress across four key outcomes: supporting young people, stopping those at risk from turning to knife crime, policing our streets and ending the cycle of knife crime. I will address each in turn.

First, we will do much more to give every boy and girl the best possible start in life by addressing the root causes of knife crime; increasing investment in youth services; launching 50 Young Futures hubs to bring together wellbeing support, careers guidance and positive activities in areas badly affected by knife crime; stepping up support for children who are persistently absent from school; and investing in mental health support teams in schools. We do all that and more because we recognise that, to deliver the change that is needed, we must act early and prevent harm before it escalates into violence in later life.

Secondly, we are ramping up efforts to stop young people being drawn into knife crime, be they at risk of being an offender, a victim or both. A new Safety In & Around Schools Partnership, backed by Government funding, will see around 250 schools given targeted support to boost their capacity to tackle knife crime and reduce the risk of harm. We are also investing in the county lines programme and the highly effective network of violence reduction units, and strengthening crime prevention in the communities that need it most.

Thirdly, we will ensure that victims of knife crime get the justice that they deserve, and that dangerous criminals face the full force of the law, through a robust and effective police response. Visible local policing is central to our approach not just on knife crime but across the full breadth of this Government’s agenda on law and order. The severity of the situation that we inherited has been well documented, so I will not retrace that ground, except to say that we have made it a first-order priority to rebuild neighbourhood policing, by putting an additional 13,000 police personnel into neighbourhood roles in England and Wales by the end of this Parliament, with over 3,000 in place two months ahead of schedule, and by implementing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, under which every community has named, contactable officers devoted to tackling local issues.

Police boots on the ground are essential, but we must also ensure that forces are equipped and empowered to make interventions that are precise, timely and effective. We will therefore support the development of tools and approaches that have the potential to enhance prevention and detection, with substantial funding to enhance crime mapping, invest in research and development aimed at improving our capability to detect high-risk knife carriers, and enable targeted action in the police force areas that see the most knife crime through a new knife crime concentrations fund. We will also support forces in maximising the use of intelligence-led stop and search, and where the law needs strengthening, we will not hesitate, as shown by our commitment to introducing much tougher rules around the online sale of knives, through measures we know as Ronan’s law, after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed aged 16 and whose mother and sister have campaigned heroically for change since his death. That will all be underpinned by the most radical programme of police reform in 200 years.

Fourthly, we will seek to end the cycle of repeat harm by strengthening the youth justice system, improving the rehabilitation of adult offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending and developing a new national approach to identify, prioritise and manage habitual knife offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety.

Each of those four strands is important on its own, and the steps that we are taking within them have been chosen because the evidence supports that. Equally, I am clear that this work transcends individual policies or initiatives. Ours is a whole-of-Government, whole-of-society mission aimed at building a safer, more hopeful future for all. The publication of this plan marks a significant moment in that mission, not because of what it says, but because of the action that it will drive.

Above all, we think today of the victims, and of the families that are smaller than they should be. Although we can never undo the pain inflicted on them, we can prevent others from suffering as they have. It will not be easy, but this Government will be unrelenting in the vital effort to protect lives and build hope. As Pooja Kanda so aptly put it,

“Every child deserves to grow up safely.”

She is right, and we must and will do everything in our power to make those words a reality in every part of our country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Halving knife crime is a measure that every Member of this House would subscribe to. It is a devastating crime with devastating consequences. Only yesterday, this House discussed the tragic events in Southport and the impact they can have on a community. Those events are, unfortunately, representative of a much broader problem, whereby too many people view it as appropriate to carry and use a knife criminally. That is horrific and must be stopped. We owe it to the country, and particularly those in communities affected by knife crime, to take knives off our streets and prosecute those who believe that using weapons is acceptable.

Unfortunately, since the election, knife-enabled crime recorded by the police has increased. In addition, we must acknowledge that, based on the data up to September 2025, 30% of all knife offences took place in London, despite London making up only 15% of the population. We need proposals that recognise the geographical nature of this crime, with so much of it occurring in particular areas. As such, it is welcome to see that the Government’s plan includes the knife crime concentrations fund, to support surges in policing where knife crime is most prevalent. However, I am afraid that the Labour Government’s proposals will not be sufficient without two critical foundations: powers for officers to stop and search individuals, and sufficient officer numbers to put this strategy into effect.

The hotspot policing outlined by the Government must be used in conjunction with effective stop and search, which the Government’s strategy acknowledges is broadly supported by the public. That is why we have set out plans to triple the use of stop and search and to use section 60 suspicionless stop and search in high-crime areas. That should be supported by changes so that a single suspicion indicator is enough to merit a stop and search.

That would be supported by 10,000 new officers. In contrast, the Government have presided over a decrease in officer numbers, with 1,300 fewer officers during their time in power, with particularly steep falls in the Metropolitan police, who cover the area where this crime is most prevalent. In the Government’s plan, they talk about the need for officers, but that is not reflected in the overall figures, as police forces across the country highlighted during discussions on police funding. If we want to see the police help achieve these reductions and the Government meet their targets, there cannot be fewer officers.

In addition, under the Sentencing Act 2026, many of those convicted of knife crime will be eligible for release earlier than under previous rules. The strategy covers many important areas, but there are few references to sentencing perpetrators of knife crime for longer. It is pitiful that those convicted of knife crime offences who would previously have gone to prison could now avoid it. That is unsurprising, as it took extensive effort from Opposition Members and those in the other place to increase knife crime sentences in the Crime and Policing Bill. The Labour party repeatedly speaks strongly, but it fails to back this up with the necessary custodial sentences.

The Government’s statement today and their strategy set out a number of important proposals and rightly recognise the importance of education and culture, building on work conducted by the previous Government on violence reduction units and the county lines programme. However, that must be supported by stronger enforcement, ensuring that those who commit these crimes are imprisoned with appropriate custodial sentences. Knife crime is truly horrific, and we owe it to everyone to give the police every power necessary to investigate and seize these weapons. I worry that without stronger enforcement, this plan will not be the significant moment the Government believe it will be.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the shadow Minister for welcoming the target of halving knife crime, the content of the plan and the knife crime concentrations fund in particular. Where we can, we should try to work cross-party on tackling such heinous crimes.

The shadow Minister mentioned sentencing. It will always be the case that people found guilty of serious knife crime offences will go to prison—that is not changing. We are making a couple of changes that he would hopefully support. To give one example, currently around 1,000 children a year are found in possession of a knife, and no action whatsoever is taken to try to get them away from that activity—none whatsoever. We have changed the rules on that, so that every single child who is found in possession of a knife will be given a plan, which will ensure that they get the support and the interventions they need to move away from crime. If they do not adhere to those conditions, it will become a criminal matter if necessary. That is a big gap we are filling.

In the Crime and Policing Bill, which the House will debate this afternoon, we are introducing a new offence of knife possession with intent—currently, there are offences of possession of a knife, and possession involving a threat to life—and there will be a seven-year maximum sentence for that crime. I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister.

We could get into a debate about numbers, but I do not want to do that today, because we have done it many times before, and I am sure we will do it many more times. However, I reiterate that there are 12,000 officers in our country who are sitting behind desks. We do not think that is right. We want to get them out into our communities. There has been an 18% increase in the number of police in our neighbourhoods in the last year. We want those officers to do the job that we want them to do, not waste time on bureaucracy, so we are investing hugely in artificial intelligence and new technology. That will free up the equivalent of 3,000 full-time officers—just by giving them the tech that they should already have had to help them do their job. We are pushing as hard as we can, not on the exact number of officers, but on outcomes.

I end by repeating a statistic that I am very pleased about, and that shows that we are moving in the right direction: knife crime is down 8% overall, and knife murders are down 27%. We are focusing on outcomes, not police numbers.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

On Sunday, there was a horrific attack in my constituency; a 16-year-old boy was fatally stabbed in Orton. My thoughts—and those of the House, I am sure—are with his family.

I welcome the Government’s ambition to halve knife crime. How will that help to tackle the issue in Peterborough and across Cambridgeshire? What work is under way on understanding the root causes of why, in certain regions, knife crime is not following the national trend and decreasing, so that we can better address those root causes?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; of course, all our thoughts are with the family of his constituent who has lost his life. These things are always tragic, and I know that he will be involved in trying to help the community heal from such a difficult situation. I know that arrests have been made on suspicion of murder and other offences; I think four people have been arrested. That is good, but of course, nothing will bring back that young lad.

We have to understand where knife crime is happening and why, and we are investing a huge amount of funding in exactly that. Through our work, we are able to identify exactly where the knife-crime hotspots are across the country, and we are working with local partners and the police to ensure that we understand exactly why there are these hotspots. In some parts of the country, this is happening just after school, because, sadly, this is a crime that involves young people. Sometimes the night-time economy is driving knife crime, and sometimes it is other things. We are absolutely focused on the causes of knife crime, and on providing a lot of support to young people to try to bring them out of a life of crime, but also on understanding exactly what is going on in some areas. As my hon. Friend says, there will be some areas where knife crime is going up, and some where it is coming down. We need to understand that and address it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the strategy, and I am particularly glad to note the involvement of the Ben Kinsella Trust in formulating it. The trust does remarkable work with young students and teachers to make sure that we take a holistic approach to knife crime, which is badly needed. That is particularly true of its chief executive officer, Patrick Green, who I had the pleasure of meeting at Finsbury library last year. We Liberal Democrats have said time and again that we need a smarter approach to knife crime, not just to save lives but to improve them. Will the Minister commit to securing long-term funding for the measures outlined in the strategy? Without that guarantee, the strategy will be little more than warm words.

Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether the 13,000 new police officers in the neighbourhood teams that the Government claim to be deploying are actually a new resource, or is this an accounting trick, whereby existing officers are redeployed? The Minister may not want to talk about numbers, but they are particularly important in London; the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has said that it is increasingly difficult to keep Londoners safe with a shrinking force, and estimates suggests that there are 2,503 fewer police officers in London today than there were in May 2024. I am happy to be corrected on that number.

Finally, will the Minister explain why the Government continue to skirt around the edges of a meaningful public health approach, without adopting one outright? We know that knife crime is not just a policing issue; it is a public health crisis. If we are serious about tackling it as the epidemic that it is, we must treat it as one, and bring together every person who sees the warning signs: teachers, GPs, youth workers, social workers, sports coaches—trusted adults who know when something is going wrong—and, tragically, as we have read in the conclusions of the Southport inquiry report, parents too. Right now, all those groups are isolated and do not talk to each other. We need to break down the silo walls and build real partnerships across civil society. Until the Government recognise that and invest in a public health approach, our progress will be blunted.

[Sarah Jones]

I appreciate the Liberal Democrats welcoming the plan. I join the hon. Gentleman in praising the Ben Kinsella Trust and Patrick Green. Patrick has been brilliant throughout the development of the strategy, as have the members of the coalition that brought together a group of people, many of whom have lost loved ones in very difficult circumstances, to push for action to stop other people losing their loved ones. I pay tribute to all of them.

The funding for the plan will come from across Government, not just the Home Office. Home Office funding amounts to about £130 million—a substantial sum—but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Young Futures hubs, the Department for Education is leading on interventions in schools, and the Ministry of Justice is making a huge investment in the youth justice system, so there is a big cross-Government approach.

I have done a lot of work over the years on the public health approach. It is quite simple; it basically says that violence is catching. If people have violence in their life, they are more likely to be violent. Someone who was in a domestic abuse situation as a child is more likely to be violent; people who join a gang are more likely to become violent—it is relatively straightforward. The interventions that we are putting in place are designed to prevent those crimes and stop that violence spreading. That is why the figures on violence are coming down, and we are seeing the first shoots of success.

On the numbers, there has been a 0.6% drop overall in the number of police officers from March 2025 to September 2025—that is a very small drop. The key question is: what are our police officers doing? Having 12,000 officers behind desks is not right; they should be out in our communities. Obviously, some of them need to do jobs that do not involve being out on our streets, but we want our officers out on our streets. We have always said—we said it in our manifesto—that the 13,000 will be a mix of new officers, police community support officers and redeployed officers.

We are introducing new technology, so that we can free up the equivalent of 3,000 officers’ time. It is much better for that 13,000 to be a mix of officers; it means that we have already been able to deliver 3,000, some of whom are already trained officers, so they know what they are doing. If we were just recruiting new people, there would be the challenge of new officers not having the experience that others have. We have always said that we would be taking a mixed approach. The point is that we are putting 13,000 police officers into our communities and neighbourhoods, which is what the public want. Those officers will help to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime, and knife crime too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and members of the safer knives group, which brings together experts on the type of knives most commonly used in knife crime. Does she agree that restricting sales of pointed knives, and moving to rounded-tip versions for kitchen use, could limit the number and type of injuries caused, especially in domestic and impulsive violence, potentially reducing death and serious injuries?

[Sarah Jones]

I applaud the work that my hon. Friend has been doing with others, including Leanne Lucas, who was sadly at the horrendous event in Southport, and who has been campaigning on the issue since then. I have had the honour of meeting her several times to talk about this. My hon. Friend is right that ordinary kitchen knives are used extensively in domestic and impulsive violence. When it comes to the streets, there are a whole range of horrific knives that we are looking to reduce in number, ban and control through legislation, but the basic impulsive act of picking up a kitchen knife is also a significant crime. There is evidence that a knife attack would have less impact if the end of the knife was rounded, and we have worked with manufacturers and others who are introducing that kind of knife.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Where psychopaths are concerned, deterrence is unlikely to work, but I was interested to hear an expert from the Internet Watch Foundation, who was interviewed on Times Radio this morning, say that people who commune on the internet with those who supply them with knives could instantly bring together red flags and warn people, if they wanted to. Is it part of the Minister’s strategy to try to arrange for that? As for others, am I right in thinking that a very high proportion of people who commit knife crimes are detected? If so, surely a campaign saying, “If you commit knife crime, you will almost certainly be caught” could act as a real deterrent to those capable of being deterred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is right that a very high proportion of people who commit knife offences are detected and charged. How we influence people who may want to pick up a knife is an interesting and difficult question. We are investing a small amount of money in trialling some communication techniques. A lot of money has been spent on the violence against women and girls campaign, which many people will have seen; it tries to educate men on violence and how to behave. We are going to do some testing on which messages might work, and which might not, to try to target people who might pick up a knife.

The right hon. Gentleman’s first question was about the sale of knives online, and whether retailers can detect issues that should be raised. The National Knife Crime Centre, which was launched a couple of weeks ago and has £1.7 million in Government funding, has a team of police officers who will investigate the sale of knives online. We are introducing legislation about buying knives in bulk; sadly, people buy, for example, 300 knives, and then sell them in their communities. Retailers will have an obligation to tell the police if people buy in bulk. We will be able to see the patterns and intervene at the right time.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

A family and my whole community have been left reeling, following the fatal stabbing of Jamie Collins, a 21-year-old student at the University of the West of England, last week in Filton. Jamie has been named by police today, following the arrest of another young man. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with Jamie’s loved ones, as are my thoughts, at this unimaginably difficult time. I have listened to the Minister’s statement with interest. How will the new knife crime plan seek to reduce youth knife crime specifically, so that fewer families have to face the impossible, and so that we can ensure that young people have the safe and bright future that they deserve?

[Sarah Jones]

All our condolences go to Jamie’s family at this incredibly difficult time. I know that the community in Filton will be reeling, and that my hon. Friend will play her role in bringing people together to come to terms with what has happened. It is catastrophic when someone loses their life at such a young age.

Through the action plan, which I commend—[Interruption.] I am not supposed to hold things up, am I? My point, in holding up the document, was to show that the action plan is substantial; it has a lot in it to ensure that young people do not get involved in crime in the first place and to tackle the challenge if they do. DCMS is leading on our Young Futures hubs: 50 youth centres across areas that are impacted particularly by knife crime. The hubs will bring together lots of different services for young people in one place so that they can be supported.

We are also doing more on interventions for young people if they are found to be in possession of a knife. We are backing the violence reduction units with £66 million, and they are doing a range of evidenced interventions to try to make sure that young people step away from crime. There is a whole plan of activities to get them out of crime and to prevent crime from happening in the first place, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s community will see the effects.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I had the opportunity to go out with the local police in my constituency on an operation to combat youth crime. One thing I found most distressing was the liberal ownership and unthinking use of knives among teenagers, which I know the police in my constituency are desperate to sort out. Following the Government’s consultation on knife sales, will the Minister reassure my constituents, the police and the public that the Government will put forward a knife licensing scheme, whereby all knife retailers, including online, bricks-and-mortar and private sellers, must be registered to sell any kind of knife in order to prevent attacks from taking place?

[Sarah Jones]

We are already putting in place a range of interventions through the Crime and Policing Bill—which is going through Parliament and which we are debating this afternoon—to strengthen age verification for knives, and to ensure that online companies have a duty to remove violent content and knife sale content, and are doing more to do so. As the hon. Lady says, we have also consulted on whether we should have a licensing scheme. We are looking through that at the moment and deciding where we go. The campaign has been led by Pooja Kanda, the mother of Ronan Kanda, who died; she has been campaigning on this issue ever since. We are certainly very sympathetic, but we are the stage of looking at the consultation and seeing what a workable licensing scheme would look like.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we want to end the scourge of knife crime, we have to tackle supply, demand, enforcement, education and culture. Oldham has seen some of Greater Manchester’s highest numbers of section 60 stop-and-search areas, and there is often a clear pattern of gang activity, resulting in children carrying knives and other weapons. Petty postcode wars can escalate from online bullying to on-street attacks with serious injury and loss of life. I welcome the announcement of the Young Futures hubs, but given the overwhelming evidence of youth knife crime in Oldham and the cross-border activity in neighbouring Manchester, which has been selected for one of the new hubs, can Oldham be urgently considered as the programme rolls out?

[Sarah Jones]

We are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on where the Young Futures hubs will be, but they will be in the areas most affected by knife crime. There is a whole range of other interventions, which I hope will support my hon. Friend’s community to bring down knife crime overall. It will not just be the Young Futures hubs; many more interventions in our strategy are also designed to support. Greater Manchester has a big investment in addressing county lines, with which he will probably be very familiar. That has been incredibly successful and has got more successful every year that it has been in play. We are funding that this year. Hundreds of knives are being taken off our streets, and thousands of young children are being safeguarded as a result.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It was around this time last year that I led the Backbench Business debate in the Chamber on preventing knife crime among children and young people, so I welcome the measures announced by the Minister and hope that they have a huge impact, reducing the use of knives by young people. I want to touch on two points in her announcement.

When it comes to banning zombie knives, we know that they and ninja swords account for less than 4% of all fatal stabbings. Screwdrivers account for more fatal stabbings, and household kitchen knives account for over half of all those stabbings. Given how easily accessible they are, do the Government have any steps in place? I appreciate that stopping access to kitchen knives is an impossible task, given that everybody in this Chamber has them at home, but are the Government considering any measures to dissuade people from using kitchen knives in this way? Furthermore, we know that social media has a huge influence on children, creating the fear that leads to them carrying a knife. Does the Minister have any steps to address that?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the strategy and for the work he has done. He is absolutely right: people commit knife crime offences with all different kinds of knives. Some of the knives that have been banned have a particularly pernicious impact, given the damage they do to people’s bodies. We are putting in place a whole raft of interventions to ensure there is more control over the sale of all types of knives. These includes the age verification checks in the Crime and Policing Bill, and interventions on the sale of knives generally: making sure that young people are not buying knives, and putting in place a duty on companies to report if people buy in bulk. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) also mentioned the work that campaigners are doing on the design of knives to stop them being so impactful.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) is absolutely right about social media. In the Bill, we are putting more onus on social media companies to do more, with a duty to report the sale of knives that are illegal. There is a lot more to be done with regard to very serious violent content online. This Government—including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—have done a lot of work on this issue and are doing a huge amount to address porn, child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls, but there is another piece of work to be done with the companies to ensure that all violent content is removed.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

My family sadly knows the devastating consequences of knife crime. As the Government launch their welcome action plan today, I think of my cousin David Charlton, who was killed with a knife in 2012. Reducing knife crime is a moral imperative, so that there are fewer families like David’s or indeed like the family of Connor Brown, whose bereaved parents have done excellent work in tackling knife crime in Sunderland and the north-east and were recently recognised with MBEs for that work. Their approach has focused on education, so will the Minister say a little more about the plan’s commitment to update the curriculum from September so that every child receives knife violence prevention education in school? Will she support the involvement of bereaved families where they want to be part of the delivery of that curriculum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

May I say how sorry I am to hear about the death of my hon. Friend’s relative? What a tragedy that is, not just for the immediate family, but for the wider communities in which people live.

Education is key, and I have worked very hard on this raft of measures with the Department for Education. As my hon. Friend says, there is new guidance to schools on violence prevention, which will help to educate young people. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was with a bereaved parent who is going into schools and helping to teach young people about the reality of knife crime and what happens. That is a very important part of the picture. We are targeting in particular 250 schools in areas where there are very high concentrations of knife crime; we will be giving them more support so that they can access the services they need. We are very joined up with the Department for Education on this action plan.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the Minister speak to Sadiq Khan and ask him to get a grip on the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London? Can we increase the stop-and-search powers of the Met police so that they can actually do their job and provide the enforcement that people across London are asking for? My husband was attacked by someone with a knife while he was caring for his mother-in-law, and one of our wonderful members of staff in the Tea Room was attacked in Brixton by someone with a knife just last week. This is a problem across London. My residents want to feel safe. Will the Minister do something to stop the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London?

[Sarah Jones]

Can I start by saying that I am very sorry that somebody from the Tea Room was attacked last week? I had not been aware of that, and I will find out more about it. I am also very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s husband.

The growing narrative around London is just wrong. It has been debunked by lots of sensible people in lots of ways, so I will not go into all the details, but we know that the Mayor of London has invested more in policing than at any time before. Stop and search is an important tool, and the Mayor of London and the police in London use it; across the country, there are about 14,000 searches per year where a weapon is found, which is a high number. Stop and search is used effectively, and its use actually went down every year when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London. It is better to use effective stop and search, which is what we are doing—it is an important tool. Only last week, the Mayor of London announced that he is going to be opening a youth club in every single London borough, which will help to make sure that young people have somewhere to go and something to do. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes that.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I welcome the serious action that this Government are taking to tackle knife crime. My constituent Tracy set up Changes Are Made following the fatal stabbing of her grandson Cameron. Tracy’s ambition is to get a youth hub set up in our local area, and she has already spoken to almost 1,000 young people in schools across Bournemouth and Poole. Some 62% of those young people have said that better education is the best way to prevent knife crime, so can the Minister please assure me that equipping young people with the knowledge they need is part of our strategy, and that areas such as my constituency will be part of our plan for support?

[Sarah Jones]

I assure my hon. Friend that every part of the country, including Bournemouth, will be part of our action plan. We are making interventions across the whole country, as well as very targeted interventions where knife crime is particularly acute. I have already outlined our interventions in schools, whether that is support for the schools where the problem is most acute, or the overall interventions to make sure schools are fulfilling new guidance on violence prevention. Lots of brilliant people—my hon. Friend spoke about Tracy—are going into our schools and sending really powerful messages to our young people. I absolutely support that work, and a lot of our violence reduction units provide funding for those kinds of interventions.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

While I of course welcome the statement and any attempt to reduce and tackle knife crime, does the Minister not agree that without saturation stop and search, and without immediate custody of anyone found in possession of a knife without a valid reason, the rest is just white noise?

[Sarah Jones]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcoming of the statement—it is appreciated.

Stop and search is a really important tool. I am not entirely sure what “saturation stop and search” is, but if we stopped and searched everybody, all our police would spend all their time stopping and searching people to no particular end. Stop and search has to be evidence-based and targeted, and that is what the police are doing. We support that. We want more intelligence-led stop and search. It is a good thing, but anyone who thinks that it is the only answer misunderstands the problem. We have to prevent crime from happening in the first place, as well as to tackle the perpetrators who are already involved and make sure we address reoffending. Doing one intervention without all the rest is not going to work, which is why our action plan involves multiple Government Departments, lots of funding, and lots of support from the Prime Minister down.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Bedfordshire police welcomes the Government’s plan to refer all child knife possession cases to youth justice services, building on its work with the NHS, schools, charities and community groups to discourage under-16s from carrying knives. Can the Minister outline how the new national co-ordination unit will crack down on illegal online knife sales in order to strengthen such local partnerships, which are working to prevent young people from having knives in the first place?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to the police in Bedfordshire, who I know are doing a really good job.

Among all the agencies he talked about, the NHS has a really important role to play. Of course, we put youth workers into most of our A&Es, so that if a young person who has been stabbed comes in, we have some chance of intervening with them to get them out of the cycle of violence they are involved in. The brilliant investigative police officers at the new National Knife Crime Centre will be investigating the sale of knives online. That will be a focused piece of policing work, and the Government are providing £1.7 million for it. Those officers will look at the sale of knives online and go after the people who are selling them illegally. Increasingly, we are seeing young people in the grey market buying knives in bulk and selling them to each other. We are going to make that very difficult for people to do, but where it does happen—where knives are coming in from countries that they should not be coming from, where age verification checks are not being done, and where companies are making money in a way that is not legal—we will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Sadly, we have had several stabbings in Yeovil, which has led to growing local anxiety. My constituents keep telling me that they want more visible local policing, but south Somerset is so often overlooked that locals have all but given up on change. They are worried that it is not going to happen, so can the Minister tell my constituents when they will see proper funding for more visible community policing and accessible youth services in rural south Somerset?

[Sarah Jones]

I want to reassure the hon. Member’s constituents in Yeovil that I understand their concern. Neighbourhood policing has been decimated over recent years, which has had a real impact. It is why we have seen shocking rises in things like shop theft and antisocial behaviour—the things that have not been tackled because the police were not physically present on our streets. We are putting that right. We have already put 3,000 more police on our streets in our neighbourhoods—an 18% rise from what we inherited when we entered government—and we will continue to do so. We believe that the right place for our police officers and PCSOs is out on our streets, making sure they are tackling the epidemic of everyday crime, and that is what we will be doing.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and welcome the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. In my constituency we have seen far too many lives taken as a result of knife crime—indeed, just last month, another young life was lost when a 25-year-old was killed. As such, it is really important that the Government are seeking to tackle the root causes, investing in youth services as well as preventive services. Already in my constituency, though, we have some fantastic organisations doing incredible work, such as Carney’s Community. The Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), agreed to visit Carney’s to see some of the work it is doing and how it is seeking to deter young people from a life of violence and crime. Will the Minister honour that commitment and join me in a visit to that organisation in my constituency?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question—how sorry I am that a 25-year-old lost their life recently. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend are not too far away from each other, and we have faced similar challenges. Of course, I am very happy to fulfil any commitment that my predecessor made, and I would very much like to see what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. Unfortunately, though, knife crime is not limited to London or city centres; in Dewsbury and Batley, knife crime is higher than the national average, and violent crime—which includes knife crime—makes up the largest share of reported crimes. In just the past few weeks in my constituency, we have seen a number of deeply concerning incidents, including reports of a machete being used in a street fight on 10 April, a 15-year-old boy being stabbed the same day, and a knife-related assault in the town centre earlier that week. These are not isolated incidents; they are a worrying pattern that is causing real fear. Will the Minister set out what immediate, targeted action her Department is or will be taking in areas experiencing clusters of knife crime, such as Dewsbury and Batley, and how quickly residents will be able to see a tangible, positive impact?

[Sarah Jones]

Our knife crime concentrations fund of £26 million will be targeted at areas where there is a high concentration of knife crime. It is quite extraordinary: from the state-of-the-art mapping on police-recorded knife crime that we have done, we can see that all of our knife crime happens in less than 2.5% of England and Wales, so targeting resources at those areas is obviously the right thing to do. That does not mean that we do not also have to worry about other areas outside that 2.5%, which is why we are investing in neighbourhood policing and supporting our children across the country through interventions in schools. It is why we are funding things like efforts to tackle county lines, which impact the whole of the country even if they start in cities. We are making sure that we are targeting all parts of the country while also using the bulk of our resources where the highest numbers of crimes happen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the publication of this strategy, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her strong commitment over many years to this area of policy and the depth of her thinking on it. In my constituency, we have seen far too many horrific tragedies. Out of those tragedies, however, has come some truly exceptional work in response from the community and from our grassroots youth-led organisations, in providing services that support young people. Those services provide positive opportunities for young people, help the community to come to terms with the trauma they have experienced and set young people back on a positive track. However, those organisations tell me that they struggle to access long-term sustainable funding. What is the Minister doing as part of this strategy to ensure that our youth organisations can keep the lights on and do their important work as part of the infrastructure of services that we need to tackle this problem?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend and I take the same approach, and knife crime is such an important issue in our constituencies. It is front and centre of everything that we do and think about. She is right to say that from tragedies come exceptional people doing exceptional things, and those people need support. She is also right to ask the question about long-term sustainable funding. The funding on youth justice interventions is long-term, and our local authorities have now got long-term funding, too. The funding for our violence reduction units has been for just this year, but I very much hear the call that long-term funding helps those organisations to plan much better for the future.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I send my deepest sympathy to the families of everyone who has been affected, especially the family of Khaleed Oladipo, a 20-year-old young man who was stabbed in my constituency just a few weeks ago and sadly lost his life. I also pay tribute to grassroots organisations and individuals with street experience, such as Ditch the Knife, for the vital work that they do. I am glad that the Minister is aware of the work being done by De Montfort University on round-bladed knives, because in 2025 alone 95 lives were lost to kitchen knives. Will she commit to ensuring that grassroots organisation and those with real-life street experience are empowered to play a greater role in delivering lifesaving work?

[Sarah Jones]

I express my condolences over the death of the man in the hon. Member’s constituency. Grassroots organisations are incredibly important and we have done a lot of work, as have the violence reduction units, in making sure that things are evidence-based, so that we know they are having an impact and are working. The Youth Endowment Fund has done a whole raft of work looking at what does and does not work, so that we know that and fund it appropriately. I hope that he can be reassured that we will continue to support, through violence reduction units and other vehicles, those local grassroots organisations to make sure that they are having the impact we need them to have.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, but she will know that youth charities have described knife crime as a public health issue linked to cuts in youth services. Will she therefore outline how this strategy addresses those structural drivers in areas that will not receive one of the 50 Young Futures hubs, including access to youth provision, mental health support and family services? Will she meet me to discuss how the brilliant Salford Youth Zone can play its part in the Government’s strategy and receive the additional resources that it needs to deliver the Government’s plans?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decimation of our youth services that we saw over the past 15 or so years, because they are not a statutory function for local authorities, has been catastrophic. We all know the impact of that. We are rebuilding infrastructure that has been torn away, and that is a challenge. As she says, we are introducing 50 youth hubs. The Mayor of London announced a youth centre for every borough in London, and other mayors across the country are doing what they can with their funding to make sure we are putting these services back. There is a huge push in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that we have got people supporting our kids’ mental health in schools. There is a whole raft of interventions, but I am happy to talk to her about what Salford youth club is doing.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

In Luton South and South Bedfordshire, we know all too well the devastating impact of knife crime, so I welcome our Government’s ambitious plan to halve it over the next decade, and in particular the emphasis on supporting young people and youth services. The Luton Youth Partnership Service is doing excellent targeted early-intervention work locally. Will the Government collaborate with existing programmes that focus on multi-agency partnerships to ensure that best practice is built on and expanded?

[Sarah Jones]

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

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Minister, like me, has had conversations with a parent who has lost a loved one. As an MP, they break your heart. I think particularly today of the mother of Josh McKay, who was murdered in my constituency a few years ago. He was a young man with his whole life ahead of him and a young family. I also thank the Minister for her open acknowledgment of the value of voluntary and community groups such as Street Fathers, Project Zero, Spark2Life and Break Tha Cycle, which do fantastic work in my community with our young people. May I press her on something? She talks powerfully about the importance of making school a safe place, but she will know of the concerns many of us have about the unilateral decision to withdraw school safety officers in my constituency. Headteachers tried to raise that concern. What confidence can she give us that those officers will return? They were such an important part of our fabric of supporting our young people to be safe.

[Sarah Jones]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she does in her constituency, and I send my condolences to Josh’s family, who will still be reeling after their loss. I agree with her that organisations such as Break Tha Cycle and Street Fathers do incredibly important work that we need to support. The target from this Government is that we should have a massive increase in our neighbourhood police officers, and we expect those officers to have a role going into schools and building relationships. We know that those relationships can be powerful. With those neighbourhood officers, we are trying to have consistency and to professionalise the neighbourhood route, so that people want to stay in it, rather than moving on up through the ranks and moving away from it. We want to have some continuity. We are also working to ensure that they are not abstracted, which is the other challenge that we have, particularly in large cities. When we have our proper cohort of neighbourhood officers, those people can be involved in their local schools, as we would expect them to be.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her tireless work and campaigning on this issue, both in this place and in our community of Croydon. I know that this moral mission is personal to her, but given her experience, does she agree that tackling knife crime requires a whole-system approach bringing together policing, schools, health and communities? Can she outline how this plan strengthens the partnerships at a local level in communities like ours in Croydon?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words, and I know that we tackle this issue together in Croydon. The point of this package of interventions is not just to stop kids getting involved in crime, but to make sure that we have got the right justice system and the right policing system, while stopping repeat offenders. A whole raft of interventions will directly impact on Croydon, which has a really good violence reduction unit that is working hard, and we want to support all the local organisations there. Our increase in neighbourhood policing will also significantly help. In Croydon, we also have live facial recognition, too, which is an interesting and powerful intervention in tackling crime. We are consulting at the moment on its legal basis.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Labour Government’s focus on knife crime. One courageous family in my constituency lost their beloved boy, Kory, who was stabbed to death by a 13-year-old boy. Kory’s family and I have asked the Scottish Government and Glasgow city council to confirm that the council has thoroughly reviewed all their dealings with the 13-year-old child convicted of killing Kory. That review is essential so that lessons are learned to prevent future tragedies. However, it is also essential to ensure that the rehabilitation of the child convicted of killing Kory is underpinned by a thorough understanding of that child’s background. The Scottish Government and Glasgow city council absolutely refuse to confirm that a thorough case review has taken place. Does the Minister agree that when children commit serious crimes, it is essential that thorough case reviews are carried out?

[Sarah Jones]

What a horrific thing it is that has happened in my hon. Friend’s community—the murder of a child by a 13-year-old child. Of course we need to understand what has happened. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to ensure that we always learn the lessons and that proper reviews are in place, and the framework is there to do that. While responsibility sits with the Scottish Government and local partners in this case, I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Derby is a city that unites to tackle the toughest challenges. When more co-ordination has been needed in relation to knife crime involving young people, school leaders, the council and Derbyshire constabulary have been around the table to strengthen that joined-up response locally. Local organisations such as Safe and Sound also do crucial work with our young people. Does the Minister agree that tackling knife crime requires a partnership response that brings together communities, the police, schools and health authorities, and can she say a little about how the Government’s plan will strengthen those local partnerships?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in bringing together local organisations to help ensure that we are tackling these issues. A raft of interventions in the plan will help local organisations to do the work that needs to be done, and we are introducing the biggest police reform in 200 years, which involves work relating to prevention and how community safety partnerships work locally. We have committed ourselves to reviewing that whole landscape to ensure that rather than people duplicating work, sitting in different meetings and doing different things, everyone is coming together with a single plan to tackle violence.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I am often struck by the courage and bravery of bereaved families who have lost loved ones to knife crime. Last year I spoke to a father who had lost his son, and who is dedicated to improving life and seeing positive change in other communities to ensure that no one else suffers the grief that he has suffered. How best can he and others like him play their part in delivering this action plan?

[Sarah Jones]

I never cease to be amazed by how incredibly resilient people are in their ability to suffer such loss and then come forward and campaign to ensure that it does not happen again. There are a number of different ways in which people can get involved—for instance, through the work of violence reduction units and local violence reduction plans. I am sure I can give my hon. Friend a list of organisations with which her constituent could potentially get involved. We need as many people as possible to help in this regard, because what is needed is a community-led and community-driven response.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I regularly raise the need for more resources for frontline policing in Cleveland. We have a small population but high deprivation, and the police funding formula does not take account of the severity of crime in our region—including knife crime, the prevalence of which is among the highest in the country. I welcome the 48 new police personnel who have begun neighbourhood roles over the last year, but what more can we do to get more resources to the frontline and make our streets safe again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Cleveland police is one of the forces that we talk to regularly, because, as my hon. Friend says, the current police funding formula is not fit for purpose. It is very old, and it needs reform. We are reforming the whole structure of policing, and as part of that we will review the formula to bring it up to date and make it fit for purpose. Although I have no answer for my hon. Friend now, the question of the formula bears heavily on my mind, and we are doing a great deal of work on it in the Department.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the 8% reduction in knife crime and the increase in neighbourhood policing, which has seen a named officer in every ward of Hartlepool, but the Minister is right to say—and my constituents would agree—that it is not enough. Frontline officers tell me that they are taken off the street for far too long because they have to travel to Middlesbrough owing to the closure of our custody suite by the Conservative party. Given that the funding formula is broken and unfairly punishes Cleveland, can the Minister commit herself to reviewing it so that we can receive the funding we need to reopen that custody suite for my town?

[Sarah Jones]

I have spoken to forces in areas across the country where the distance that has to be travelled just to get to a custody suite is a disincentive to arrests, which is absolutely not the approach that we want to see. The challenges that we face are great, but we are reviewing the funding formula and will be establishing a fairer formula. The police estate has not received the investment that it should have received for a very long time. Our priority is to get police out into our communities, but we need to look at the estate as well.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Derby and Derbyshire, 71% of habitual knife carriers are aged 25 or under. Does the Minister agree that, in Derby and throughout the country, we need to provide a tailored support package so that we can break the cycle of young people’s involvement in knife crime and keep our communities safe?

[Sarah Jones]

Knife crime is horrific in all its forms, but there is something uniquely horrific about young people picking up knives and using them against other young people. There is a raft of interventions that we need to make and we are doing that through our action plan, but while the progress that we have seen so far is to be welcomed, it is not enough. Only when we reach our target and fulfil our ambition of halving knife crime will we know that we are actually making a difference and giving a future to those young people.

FIFA Men’s Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Late last year the Government consulted on proposals to make a contingent licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 for the 2026 FIFA men’s football world cup. The majority of respondents were in favour of licensing hours being relaxed for the semi-final and final stages of the tournament, with some calling on us to go further and extend hours for games in the earlier rounds of the tournament.

Having considered the consultation responses, the Government intend to proceed with a contingent licensing hours order for England and Wales to enable communities to come together at their local licensed premises to support the home nations—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—where they progress past the group stages of the tournament.

The Government have already announced a contingent order that will apply if any of the home nations reach the rounds of 32 and 16 as for the quarter finals, semi-finals and finals for matches that kick off between 8 pm and 10 pm UK time.

Having considered this further, I now wish to announce that we will also extend for round of 32 and round of 16 matches that kick off at 5 pm and 6 pm. For these matches licensing hours will be extended until 1 am the following morning, rather than 11 pm on the day of the match, allowing more time for fans to do post-match analysis and hopefully celebrate a great victory for a home nation. The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales, and will only come into effect should a home nation play in the matches.

This order will enable communities to come together to collectively support the home nations teams and celebrate their success, while also providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector at this challenging time. The order will be laid in Parliament in due course and an economic note will be published alongside it on legislation.gov.uk.

[HCWS1493]

Police Pension Scheme: Opt-out Contingent Decisions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

In 2014 and 2015, the previous Government reformed public service pension schemes. When the reforms were introduced, they provided “transitional protections”, which allowed members who were closer to retirement age to remain in the previous “legacy” schemes rather than move to the “reformed” schemes. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found, in the McCloud and Sargeant cases, that these protections in the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination.

Governing legislation—the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022—was enacted to remedy the discrimination identified by the courts. A core element of the remedy is providing affected members with a choice of pension benefits, legacy or reformed, for the period the discrimination had effect from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022. It also provides affected members with an opportunity to unwind certain pension scheme decisions that they would have made differently but for the discrimination.

However, for police officers who opted out of their pension scheme due to the discrimination there is an unintended consequence of the legislative provisions of the Act, as it specifies the relevant legacy scheme for members who have suffered discrimination. A cohort of these members currently do not have access to the legacy scheme they had last accrued benefits in, as there is a barrier within the Act to rejoining the 1987 police pension scheme, so they have not yet been provided with a full remedy.

This Government will use the additional provisions for special cases set out in the Act to disapply sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act for any eligible member who had opted out due to the discrimination and now, under the terms of section 5 of the Act and regulation 6 of the Police Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023, makes an election to buy back all the opted-out service during the remedy period. This will be applied retrospectively so that opted out service within the remedy period—1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022—can become remediable service in the correct legacy scheme.

Police pension scheme managers should apply this, effective immediately, and in anticipation of the amending legislation. We will correct the position through a statutory instrument as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[HCWS1475]

Lucy Letby Case: Conduct of Cheshire Police

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing this debate and on being a formidable campaigner for the causes that he cherishes in this place. Given the time available, I do not have long to cover the range of issues.

These are serious criminal cases. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is currently undertaking a review. In that context, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of those processes; we must let them take their course.

A meticulous and lengthy investigation led to Lucy Letby being identified as a suspect and arrested in July 2018 in respect of the significant rise of neonatal deaths and acute, life-threatening collapses of newborn infants. I am sure we all think of the parents of those children. As I have had children in neonatal units and born into special care baby units, I can only imagine their suffering in what they have been through.

In November 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised multiple charges of murder and attempted murder against Letby. The CPS deemed that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest for the cases to proceed to trial. Lucy Letby stood trial from October 2022 to August 2023. She faced 22 charges related to 17 babies, and she was convicted of seven counts of murder and seven of attempted murder. Letby was also found not guilty of two counts of attempted murder, and the jury was unable to reach verdicts on two other counts of attempted murder.

In September 2023, Letby submitted an application to the Court of Appeal against her convictions. The application was heard by three senior justices in April 2024. The justices refused the appeal. From June to July 2024, Letby was retried in respect of one of the previous attempted murder charges. Letby was found guilty, for which she received an additional whole-life order. Following that conviction, Letby submitted an application to appeal to the Court of Appeal. During October 2024, a new bench of three senior justices heard the appeal, which was again refused.

I set that out to make clear that there has been a proper process, involving independent assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service, trial by a jury and two appeal processes, which has resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of Lucy Letby.

[David Davis]

I am conscious that I have denied the Minister much time to respond—that was because I do not think she has much scope for a response—but I want to place one thought with her. One reason why we are having the debate is because Members of Parliament cannot make applications to the IOPC; only victims can do so. I think that is a flaw in the law. My argument today is that we have not followed the guidelines, and the best way to deal with that is through an expert mechanism such as the IOPC. When she goes away today, will she take with her the thought that we might fine-tune the law on that point?

[Sarah Jones]

I will of course take that away. We are always looking at ways to improve the IOPC system. I was with the IOPC earlier today talking about its transformation programme and the work we are trying to do.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of remarks about Cheshire constabulary—he can have his view. His Majesty’s inspector, through his Peel inspections, has in fact given it some of the highest ratings in the country, with two “outstanding” ratings and four “good” ratings, as well as two graded “adequate”. I put that on the record in the context of this conversation. In that context, it is important that we as Members of Parliament should not undermine public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system. We need to be careful to avoid implying impropriety where none has been established.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he will write to the DPP. He will take that through its course. I end by reminding the House that this country uses due process, and due process has been followed in the convictions of Lucy Letby, with a trial by jury, upheld on appeal. I remain confident of that and of the effectiveness of Cheshire constabulary. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone else here a happy Easter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I, too, wish everybody, and especially my constituents in Sussex Weald, a very happy Easter.

Question put and agreed to.

Orgreave Inquiry

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Today I am announcing the formal launch of the Orgreave inquiry, a statutory public inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984.

I pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and the National Union of Mineworkers, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment. Their voices will be central to the inquiry’s work.

This inquiry delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to uncover the truth about Orgreave and to rebuild public confidence in policing. It will investigate the events of that day, resulting in the arrest of 95 picketers and scores of injuries, which left a lasting impact on communities across South Yorkshire and beyond. It will examine the planning undertaken by the police and Government for the policing of the demonstration at Orgreave on 18 June 1984, including relevant decision making in the leadup to the day; what happened on the day; the immediate aftermath and lasting impact on individuals and communities, including the subsequent public narrative; and the charging decisions and prosecutions relating to those arrested at Orgreave.

As announced on 21 July last year, the inquiry will be chaired by the Right Reverend Dr Pete Wilcox, the Bishop of Sheffield. He will be supported by a panel of independent experts appointed in accordance with section 4 of the Act. I am pleased to confirm the appointment of the following panel members to support the Chair in his work:

Baroness Mary Bousted, a former senior trade union leader representing teachers, leaders, and support staff and workers. She led the panel which, in April 2025, published the report of its independent review of the Police Federation of England and Wales. She will provide relevant knowledge and insight concerning the strategic and operational leadership and management of trades unions

Wendy Williams CBE, a former chief prosecutor and, between 2015-2024, an inspector in His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. She published the report of her independent Windrush lessons learned review in March 2020, and her update report on the Home Office’s response in March 2022. She will provide independent insight on police governance, and the decision-making and effectiveness of police forces.

Dr Joanna Gilmore, a senior lecturer in law at the University of York, whose research expertise includes public order law, human rights and policing policy. Drawing on her sociolegal and oral history research into the 1984-85 miners’ strike, she will contribute analysis of the broader societal, legal and political issues arising from the events at Orgreave.

Dr Angie Sutton-Vane, an historian with extensive experience in evidence-based research, historical accountability and the archiving, preservation of and access to police force records. She will provide expertise on the interpretation of historical records, particularly those of the police.

The panel will operate under the agreed terms of reference, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of each House today.

[HCWS1477]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

3. What guidance her Department has provided to police forces on the application of public order legislation in relation to the expression of religious beliefs.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

This Government are committed to building a strong and integrated society where people can express their religious identity without fear of harassment. Guidance is set out by the College of Policing in its professional practice guidance. The Home Secretary has also commissioned Lord Ken Macdonald to undertake an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, which will consider whether police powers strike the right balance between protecting the public and upholding the right to lawful protest. We look forward to his recommendations soon.

[Robin Swann]

May I start by condemning the attack on the ambulances of the Hatzola community ambulance service over the weekend?

A core tenet of our system and beliefs is that of civil and religious liberty for all. Does the Minister agree that we all have a role to play in upholding that core British tenet?

[Sarah Jones]

I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning the attack.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our British values of diversity, tolerance and freedom of religious belief are one of our country’s greatest strengths, and we all have a role to play in ensuring that we uphold them everywhere we can.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

4. What her timetable is for publishing the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

My hon. Friend asks for the timetable on the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. He will know that this has been ongoing for some time—since the Heaton Park attack, which happened in October 2025 —and we are hoping to receive the final report by the end of May.

[Will Stone]

I thank the Minister for her response. This review is incredibly important in protecting people’s rights to protest and ensuring that our communities are kept safe. Will she give me her word that she will do everything within her power to ensure that the review comes out by the end of May?

[Sarah Jones]

I can tell my hon. Friend that although Lord Macdonald is working independently he has assured us that the review will come before the end of May, and we will respond before the summer recess. It is very important.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I led a deputation to Kurdistan about five weeks ago, and was impressed by what the Government were doing there in relation to public order and hate crime legislation. There are many things in Kurdistan that we in the United Kingdom could take on board and have as our core values. It may be outside the remit of the Minister, but if they do something good somewhere else, I think we should look at it here, so will she do that for me?

[Sarah Jones]

We are always very happy to look at countries where good things are happening and learn those lessons, so I am very happy to do that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the potential impact of changes to worker visas on businesses in rural economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to help tackle shop theft.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

We are giving the police the powers they need to bear down on shop theft, including making it a specific offence to assault retail workers and ending the effective immunity for shop thefts under £200. We are also fighting the organised gangs who often drive these crimes. Our £5 million investment in a specialist intelligence-led policing cell is bringing more criminals to justice.

[Robbie Moore]

Colin Appleyard Motorcycles in Keighley was recently the victim of a ram raid, which involved a vehicle being used to smash the entrance before a gang of seven individuals entered the business and stole nine off-road bikes worth approximately £80,000. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to work with local police forces such as West Yorkshire police to identify and shut down these Mafia-style criminal gangs that are causing significant harm, distress and suffering for local businesses across Keighley and our wider area?

[Sarah Jones]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are completely focused on fighting crime. In West Yorkshire—his area—100 additional officers will be in place by the end of March, which will help us with our drive to tackle crime. As I said, our £5 million investment in the specialist intelligence-led policing unit will help us join the dots and bear down on the serious organised criminals who often drive much of this crime.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Last week, I met the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which informed me of increased levels of violence, abuse and intimidation in shops and the retail industry. That includes violence and spitting in people’s faces—horrible crimes. Will my hon. Friend say what measures the Government are taking to protect those mainly lower-paid workers in the workplace?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is completely right. That is why we are introducing a specific offence of assault on retail workers, which the previous Government were asked to do repeatedly but failed. That will send a message to anybody who may consider such crimes that they are not acceptable and that action will be taken.

We are also working closely with all the big organisations and retailers in the retail community to target action on those prolific, repeat offenders—we, in our communities, sometimes know who those people are. Through the summer of action last year, we saw real results in bearing down on them. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that charges for shop thefts, which often come with assaults alongside them, rose by 21% last year.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress her Department has made on tackling antisocial behaviour.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

20. What plans her Department has to help tackle antisocial behaviour.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

We are ensuring that neighbourhood officers are focused on tackling issues like antisocial behaviour, which can blight our communities. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has a named contactable officer dedicated to tackling crime and ASB in their local area. They will respond to neighbourhood queries within 72 hours. Every force in England and Wales also has a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead and will be publishing local antisocial behaviour action plans in April.

[Jim Dickson]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for meeting me and others at the end of last year to discuss the troubling and growing trend of the use of catapults to target wildlife and people in Dartford and across Kent? I really appreciate the work she is doing to organise a roundtable soon, where wildlife groups, farming representatives, the police and others will meet to discuss how we can take action to reverse the dangerous and illegal use of catapults. If, after that roundtable, the evidence supports doing so, will she consider adding catapults to the list of offensive weapons, which would enable the police to act promptly and effectively to disarm those using catapults to harm people and wildlife, while protecting legitimate uses?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning and drawing attention to a significant issue in parts of the country, where its impact on wildlife and people seems to be on the rise. I am pleased to have the roundtable and am grateful to him for the advice he has given as we have put that together. Of course, when evidence is there, we will look to see what we can do, whether through legislative change, more policing resources or other measures, because this crime is unacceptable. We are keen to work with him on finding solutions.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Residents in Langley Moor, Belmont, Esh Winning, North Road, Pity Me and the Sunderland Road estate are seeing growing levels of antisocial behaviour. From yobs on e-bikes to intimidation of shop workers, public disorder and arson in parks and woodlands, antisocial behaviour is getting out of hand. My constituents do not feel safe and, despite the efforts of our police and crime commissioner, Durham constabulary officer levels remain lower than 2010 due to the outdated funding formula used by previous Governments. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government are investing in policing, with a plan to tackle antisocial behaviour? At present, they are not seeing it.

[Sarah Jones]

As someone who used to live in Pity Me, I know what a wonderful area it is. I say “live”, but I was at university when I lived there, as did Mo Mowlam when she was at university. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that low-level antisocial behaviour, as it is called, is actually deeply damaging to our communities, and this Government are taking it very seriously. Of course, her area will see, I think, 26 additional officers by the end of this month, and we are bringing forward legislation on respect orders and more powers to tackle theft, public disorder, shop theft and all these things, but I will work with her to make sure we get the results that she and her community deserve.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Antisocial behaviour in social housing in my community is creating a living nightmare for some council and social housing tenants. Does the Minister agree that if we have prolific offenders responsible for antisocial behaviour from these council houses, the tenants should be asked to leave? They should be kicked out and never given social housing again.

[Sarah Jones]

I think probably every Member has had cases where antisocial behaviour is ruining lives and it feels like the right action is not taken. In many cases, and certainly in mine, the local authority’s resources have been hollowed out, and enforcement and antisocial behaviour teams are often one of the first to go. The hon. Member is absolutely right: people have to adhere by the agreement they sign when they get a tenancy.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

May I join Members in condemning the attacks last night on the four ambulances? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, antisocial crime is on the rise, yet since 2010, West Midlands police has had 520 fewer officers to tackle it. Now, thanks to this Government leaving a funding shortfall of £41 million, residents must either pay more council tax to fill the gap or lose another 80 police officers. Labour promised more police officers on our streets, and now they are pedalling backwards on their word. Why should the people of Birmingham, who have seen their council tax rise by 24% over three years, be squeezed even more to keep what little police presence they have?

[Sarah Jones]

By the end of this month, there will be 3,000 extra officers across our communities in our neighbourhoods and 13,000 by the end of Parliament. An extra £2 billion has gone into policing in the last two Budgets, including over £700 million extra this year that our police forces can use. That is a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase. We will invest, but we will also reform, because the problem with policing is that it has been unproductive. We need to make sure our officers are not behind desks, like they were under the last Government, but in our neighbourhoods fighting crime.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in relation to the non-consensual filming of women in public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

11. What recent steps her Department has taken to help tackle knife crime.

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

We have set an ambitious but essential target to halve knife crime in a decade, and we are already seeing results. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime has fallen by 8% and knife homicides are down 27% to their lowest level in a decade, but we must and will go further. We are working on the final plans for our cross-Government plan to halve knife crime, which we will publish soon.

[Harpreet Uppal]

Child criminal exploitation is a significant driver of knife crime in the UK. Around 15,500 children were identified as at risk or involved in exploitation in the year ending March 2025. Children are often coerced by gangs into carrying weapons for protection, storing drugs and trafficking illegal goods, often being criminalised themselves rather than treated as victims. What work is the Home Office doing to target the organised criminality behind CCE, and what structures are in place to support children and families in vulnerable situations?

[Sarah Jones]

We are introducing legislation to bring in a new offence of child criminal exploitation. Our county lines programme works extensively not just to tackle the criminals and to shut down the lines, but to safeguard young people. More than 4,000 safeguarding referrals have been made since July 2024, so while we are catching the criminals, we are also protecting the children.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Knife crime and drugs are destroying too many lives in our country, and stop and search is the best tool we have to take them off our streets. Does the Minister agree that the only people who should have anything to fear from stop and search are criminals? If so, why will she not adopt our proposal to allow the police to act on a single suspicion indicator, so that we can treble stop and search, and take weapons and drugs off our streets?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman thought that the way to tackle crime was to recruit more officers and put them behind desks, so I will not take any lessons from him. Stop and search is a powerful and important tool in tackling crime—nobody would disagree with that—and it is part of a range of interventions with which we can tackle knife crime. Knife-enabled robbery, for example, has plummeted in areas in which we have focused our resources since the election. We must use all the tools in our armoury, and stop and search is one of them.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

12. If she will take steps to provide Ukrainian refugees with a route to permanent settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T4. Northumbria police have announced that they had to close the custody suite in Bedlington in my constituency. That means that anybody arrested in south-east Northumberland will have to travel to the city of Newcastle for a custody suite. That will ultimately reduce frontline policing in the already stretched community of Blyth and Ashington. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this unacceptable situation?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Without wanting to step in on the operational independence of my hon. Friend’s local police force, I am very happy to have a meeting with him to talk about this issue. I take a keen interest in custody suites, and with arrests up by 5% under this Labour Government in the last year, we need to ensure that we are running them properly.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

T3. During the recent London elections, Sadiq Khan made a manifesto pledge not to close Bromley’s 24-hour police counter, so Bromley’s 24-hour police counter is obviously now closed. Does the Minister think that the closure of this vital service is good for my constituents or the safety of the community?

[Sarah Jones]

I think Boris Johnson closed a lot more front counters than Sadiq Khan has, but that is a different issue. We are putting more funding into frontline policing. We want police on our streets and in our neighbourhoods—not behind desks, as they were under the previous Government—and that is where the public want to see them.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

T5. What urgent steps is the Minister taking to tackle antisocial behaviour in town centres such as Hucknall’s? We have had persistent disorder there, including a recent racist attack on a shop owner. This is impacting on community safety and confidence, and residents expect a visible police presence.

[Sarah Jones]

As well as increasing the number of police officers on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, we are introducing respect orders to tackle antisocial behaviour. We are seeing shop theft charges going up in our town centres, and we are taking a targeted approach in policing, so that we really tackle our town centres. We take antisocial behaviour very seriously. We will continue to ensure that we make our streets safer—and they are becoming safer. They will be even safer when we have 13,000 additional officers on our streets.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

T6. Residents in Devon want visible community policing. The new towns taskforce recommended a new settlement called Marlcombe in east Devon. When new towns are built, how are additional police officers allocated to the area?

[Sarah Jones]

We are ensuring that each police force has the additional funding that it needs, and we are rolling out our target of 13,000 additional police officers. The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question about new towns and ensuring that we have policing in them. We are reviewing the police funding formula, which is outdated, as everyone in this place knows. Through all those things together, we will ensure that his community is supported.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

T8. Criminal gangs are targeting isolated farmland and woodland, dumping lorry loads of illegal waste, which poses serious environmental risks. The Environment Agency reports that offenders are saving thousands of pounds in disposal costs while landowners face the financial responsibility of clearing the site. Will the Minister support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised rural waste crime?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Rural waste crime is completely unacceptable; it is often driven by larger, serious organised criminal gangs, and we are determined to bear down on it.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has been commendably robust in her response to antisemitism and attacks on Jewish institutions, particularly since the two members of the congregation at Heaton Park synagogue were killed. After that attack, the Macdonald inquiry was set up to look into hate crime and public order. I think this afternoon is the first time that we have heard that that inquiry is not going to report until May, when it was promised for February this year. Can the Home Secretary speed it up, please?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T9. It has been reported that under the SNP, Police Scotland has written off 25,000 crimes without investigation, including shoplifting, theft and vandalism. Does the Minister agree that that is a surrender to criminals which leaves people wondering why they report crimes in the first place and shows that life in Scotland is a soft touch to criminals under the SNP?

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that England and Wales policing, which I am responsible for, will get the support it needs and bear down on criminals in exactly the way it should.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I regularly meet lead stakeholders in my constituency who work passionately to keep children safe and reduce knife crime. What work are the Government doing with grassroots organisations to support them in their work to prevent knife crime?

[Sarah Jones]

This Government fund violence reduction units. Where we do not have them, our police and crime commissioners make sure that we are funding a raft of organisations that know what is happening on the ground, what the right interventions are, and how we can drag children out of crime and into making better choices. I see that in my constituency, and I know my hon. Friend sees it in hers. As she knows, those community leaders are the bedrock, and we must support them as much as we can.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

T10.   Is the Home Secretary comfortable with the reality that, as a woman, she could not stand and pray alongside the Mayor of London at last week’s event in Trafalgar Square?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I commend Northumbria police for overseeing a huge and safe policing operation at the Newcastle-Sunderland match over the weekend, one of the many matches successfully policed every season. However, given that those officers are taken from normal day jobs in response teams, neighbourhood policing and so forth, does the Minister agree that it is time to think about the Premier League contributing more than the 20% it currently contributes to those costs, so that we can put that money back into policing?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes, and we are looking at that issue as we speak, making sure that we strike the right balance. At the moment, there is a huge cost to policing from football matches and other events more widely that is not covered. That support is not there, so we think it is right that we look at the issue.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Small boat returns run at around 6% of the total numbers arriving in this country, but the Home Secretary denies that this is anything to do with the European Convention on Human Rights. If not the ECHR, which part of the Government’s flawed policy is responsible for that feeble rate?

Angiolini Inquiry Part 3: Terms of Reference

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

On 7 February 2023, the Government published the terms of reference for part 3 of the Angiolini inquiry.

Part 3 of the inquiry was commissioned to examine the career and conduct of former Metropolitan police officer David Carrick, following his conviction for multiple sexual offences in January 2023. He was subsequently convicted of further sexual offences in November 2025.

Following a request from the chair of the inquiry, Lady Elish Angiolini, the Home Secretary has agreed to make some amendments to the terms of reference for part 3. The result of these amendments is that the inquiry will now be able to consider evidence related to allegations of criminal behaviour prior to and during David Carrick’s policing career. The amendments also make explicit reference to psychological and/or psychiatric reports written about David Carrick as material that the inquiry may consider.

The chair’s intention with these amendments is to better understand the potential drivers and motivation for Carrick’s offending, with a view to assisting police forces in understanding how to better identify and disrupt perpetrators of these horrific crimes during the recruitment and vetting stages and ensure those unfit to serve have no place in policing.

The Angiolini inquiry was launched in January 2022 following the horrific murder of Sarah Everard by a then-serving Metropolitan police officer; the report for part 1 was published on 29 February 2024. Part 2 of the inquiry, examining broader issues in policing such as vetting, recruitment, and culture, commenced on 11 May 2023 and is currently ongoing, with a report on the prevention of sexually motivated crimes against women in public published on 2 December 2025.

A copy of the amended terms of reference for part 3 of the inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1400]