Animals in Science Regulation Unit: Annual Report 2024

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.

It is important to start by reflecting on the horror of some of the stories we have heard and some of the cases that have been reported regarding animal treatment. I question whether anybody in this House would want that to continue. I suspect we are all united in wanting to phase out animal testing as quickly as possible. It is understandable that there are Members of this House who are pushing the Government to go much faster than we already are, but we are all heading in the same direction and trying to get the same outcome. It is right and proper that campaign groups, Members of Parliament and others continue to push us to do everything we can, because we need to do that.

The transparency of the report was important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) said, we need to understand picture, and the more information and data we have, the more we can see where the challenges are. I agree with that point; we need more transparency in the system to make sure we get to where we went to be as quickly as possible.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), said, our laws are unequivocal that animal testing cannot be authorised where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative exists. That is the law, and we need to make sure it is implemented. It is a fundamental principle for us all, in terms of the care that we have for our animals and the need to avoid unnecessary harm. As the shadow Minister also said, at the moment, despite rapid progress in science, there are not validated alternatives for every area of research and safety testing.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister says there are not alternatives, but there are. The forced swim test is a classic, as is the LD50. These need to be phased out; we do not need them any more. I gently encourage the Minister to tell us how we can phase these out as quickly as possible.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her persistence with me; I expect her to continue to be persistent. We can go faster with some things than others, and I will come on to the strategy that the Government have published, which has been broadly welcomed across the House. We want to go as fast as we can in the work that we do. Obviously, we are focusing today on the animals in science regulation unit, and the annual report that it published. It is not actually a statutory responsibility for it to publish that report, although maybe it should be, so I welcome its publication.

[Navendu Mishra]

The Minister is making an important speech. I am pleased to learn that pretty much everyone in this debate shares the vision of phasing out animal testing. I have two questions: first, does the Home Office have enough resources for tackling illegal and unethical animal testing; secondly, would she work with the MPs in this debate to make that report a statutory requirement?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for jumping on something I have said and holding me to account for it, which is very good. We had a similar debate to this one last week or the week before, and what came out of it—I will come on to this—was an understanding that the regulator is going through a period of reform and increasing capacity. Good things are happening in that space, but there is concern among MPs that that is not going fast or widely enough.

In the last debate, I suggested that we should meet as a group of MPs with the regulator, have these conversations and try to flush out some of the things that MPs are concerned about. The MPs who were taking part in that debate had not had the opportunity to have those conversations with the regulator, so I took back as an action that we should sit collectively and have that conversation, which I am happy to do. The reason I am not directly giving my hon. Friend the immediate response that he is asking for in terms of changing the statutory responsibility of the regulator is just because it does not sit within my remit. I want to make sure that hon. Members are satisfied that we are going as fast and as far as we can, and perhaps a meeting with the regulator would be useful on that front.

The reform that I had begun to talk about, which is overseen by my noble Friend Lord Hanson in the other place and was agreed last year, has involved an increase. Members have rightly said, “Are there enough people focused on doing this work?” We have seen an increase in inspectors from an average of 14.5 full-time equivalents in 2023 to 22 by March 2026. By expanding its capabilities, it is able to do more; the conversation that we would want to have with the regulator is about whether it is satisfied that is enough, or whether it thinks we need to go further.

The two-pronged approach of this Government is, first, to phase out the use of animal testing. I pay tribute to the campaigners pushing for Herbie’s law and I absolutely understand the need for pace and for us to be held to account to go as fast as we can. The strategy to phase out the use of animals, alongside a beefed-up regulator, is the response that this Government are taking. We want to maintain public confidence in our animal testing processes and in our research. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said—I have now quoted her three times; I need to stop quoting her so much—we do need to make sure that the life sciences industry, which is important for this country, is not pushing animal testing abroad and that we maintain our standards here.

I heard the message from Members about the fear that we might fall behind our European Union and US colleagues in this space. I am very interested in working across Government with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Lord Vallance, who are leading on the phasing out of animal research work, to push as hard as we can and look abroad. I will take that back as another action and speak to my colleague Lord Vallance—I suspect hon. Members already have—to make sure that we are learning the lessons from other countries and not falling behind; that, in fact, we are keeping pace.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt have highlighted the work of the Government. I know the Government are committed to phasing out animal testing, but the Animals in Science Regulation Unit report highlights the horrors that we unfortunately have in the system. Does she not agree that we need to work at pace to ensure that alternative methods are explored and implemented?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I am renowned for my generosity in the Chair and I am extremely open minded about how debates are conducted, but it is not really appropriate to come in two thirds of the way through and intervene when everyone else took the trouble to get here at the beginning. We are all busy, after all.

[Sarah Jones]

Thank you, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course we need to go as fast as we can.

The strategy that the Government have published includes establishing a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and 26 commitments for delivery or initiation across 2026 and 2027. It includes a commitment that from this year

“we will publish biennially a list of alternative methods research and development priorities to coalesce UK scientists around these areas and to incentivise partnerships between research organisations”.

In our most recent debate on this subject, we talked about this being an opportunity for UK science and technology to be innovators in this space and push forward new science. We want to go as fast as we can, and we will move as quickly as the science allows. Our commitment is clear: we want to work in step with the scientific community to reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals in research.

As hon. Members know, we have a three-pronged regulatory framework. It requires a personal licence—about 13,000 people have one. The procedures must form part of an approved programme of work, which must be licensed, and the work must be carried out in a licensed establishment. Our licensing is robust, in terms of the processes that people must go through before they do something as serious as test on animals. Even before a proposed project to test on animals reaches the regulator for consideration, it must undergo multiple layers of scrutiny to ensure it is justified and ethical, including from funders and animal welfare and ethical review bodies at scientific establishments. That is important.

On the work of the regulator, the transparency that we want to deliver and the changes that we have pushed through, we want to ensure we get this right. My noble Friend Lord Hanson commissioned the Animals in Science Committee—an expert committee that advises the Government on animal protection—to provide recommendations on improving the accessibility of the publicly available animal testing project summaries, and proposals are now being considered. That reflects our commitment to openness, accountability and continuous improvement.

Several hon. Members spoke about the point at which audits are made and checks are carried out. They are concerned about self-reporting. I heard that in the previous debate, and I have heard it today; that is an important part of the conversation that we need to have with the regulator. There is an important question about whether we are doing enough unannounced audits, and I am committed to going back and testing that. With the support of hon. Members, we can look at that properly.

As lots of Members said, 2.5 million procedures were conducted in Great Britain in 2024, so this is a big landscape and we need to get it right. I recognise the potential for error and wrongdoing. I want to ensure that hon. Members and campaigners are as satisfied as possible that the regulator is doing what it needs to do. There is a programme of reform under way, and we need to test it and see whether it is enough. I am committed to speaking to Lord Vallance. If any Members want to come to a meeting with the regulator, they should let me know; that will be important.

The fact that the Government have put £75 million behind the programme to phase out animal testing shows that we are putting our money where our priorities are. I know that hon. Members across the House will welcome that, but of course we need to go as fast as we can. In that vein, I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate and holding the Government to account on these very important issues.

Town and City Centre Safety

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for his brilliant speech. Apart from anything else, I want to visit the Hairy Dog and see all the wonderful things that are happening in my hon. Friend’s patch. I thank him for telling the story of his very strong community and its resilience in the face of the challenges we all want to overcome.

I want to praise the Members of Parliament who have come to this debate to represent their constituents. We are all reading, with increasing fury, about the behaviours of the former ambassador to the United States, and it is the MPs in this debate who represent the very best of what politics is about. We are in this job because we want to make our streets safer and our communities better, and to bring pride to the people we represent, and that is what Members have done in this debate. The snake oil salesmen, like those from the Reform party, who go on television and tell us we are a crime-ridden nation do not come to these debates to have these discussions. I am afraid they do not have the answers. The MPs who are present to speak up for their constituents and to demand answers, to demand better and to demand more bring out the best of what politics is for and what we are all in this business for.

I also want to speak in praise of our police. I recently met the first responders from the Huntingdon attack. Such bravery is quite extraordinary, and we ask that of our police every day. They go out and face danger, and we should always thank them.

The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) seem to forget that as Opposition spokespeople they represent their party and the nation. They spoke mostly about Sutton and Stockport rather than actual national policies. I ask them to think about what their parties have done in previous years. I will take no lessons whatever from the Conservative party, which slashed 20,000 police and then, in a rush to bring them back, put them behind desks. For example, around the country we now have 250 warranted police officers who are working in human resources. We will put police back where they belong: on our streets.

I will give Members a couple of good updates before I tackle some of the challenges we must overcome. First, the knife crime statistics that came out last week show that since this Government came to power knife crime is down 8%. We have taken 60,000 knives off the street, knife murders are down 27% and hospital admissions are down 11%. The Government will not shy away from doing everything we can to tackle serious violence and knife crime. Violence is not inevitable; we will not accept it and we will keep bearing down on it. I thank all those who have played their part in tackling that epidemic.

As so many Members have eloquently said, we know that the epidemic of everyday crime in our communities drives a sense of a lack of safety. I can tell Members that there are now 2,400 more officers in our neighbourhoods than there were when we came to power. There will be 3,000 more by March, and there will be 13,000 more by the end of the Parliament. Our communities are calling out for officers to be in our neighbourhoods tackling crime and doing the things we ask them to do, rather than being burdened by bureaucracy, which we will take away through new technology in our police reforms. Officers and PCSOs are the people who will help us to tackle the epidemic of everyday crime.

Members asked me to respond on many issues, but sadly I do not have the time. It would be remiss of me not to point out to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) that London will have 420 extra neighbourhood officers on its streets by March, and has received a £180 million increase in its budget this year.

Many Members talked about retail crime, and we are making changes in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help on that. Through our big summer of action, and the winter of action we have just completed, we have seen real results when there is good working among retailers, police and the charitable organisations that help with, for example, drug addiction, which is a driver of retail crime. My area has seen a substantial reduction in retail crime thanks to the persistent offender approach, whereby we go after those people. Some 80% of retail crime is committed by 20% of offenders, and most of them have a drug addiction of some kind. We have to join the dots and make sure that we give people the treatment they need and that they face up to the crimes they have committed.

Some Members talked about organised crime, and violence reduction units were also mentioned. I am proud to say that we are funding violence reduction units this year to increase their effectiveness. They do an absolutely brilliant job. We of course have to tackle the issues that lie behind the crime and not just the crime itself.

Members talked about what was happening in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about the street wardens in Morecambe. Street wardens are an interesting model, as we have seen over the winter.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about taxi licensing. I have seen some good work with taxi marshals who help to identify unlicensed taxi drivers and to protect and support women and young girls, who do not feel as safe as we want them to when they are out in our communities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about economic crime, which we have talked about previously, and he was absolutely right. Many Members talked about the increase in the number of vape shops or other shops that we know are actually laundering money. I know the police are dealing with that—I have been on a raid with them to tackle it—but my hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done.

Members will forgive me for not having looked once at my prepared speech. [Laughter.] The Government are doing many things that are designed to crack down on crime, but I want to end my speech in time for my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South to respond.

I had the honour of meeting the family of Danny, who was murdered in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He wanted me to meet the family, and I did. We all know the horror that crime can cause in our constituencies, whether that is everyday crime or the most horrific crime. The Government will not rest until we have tackled the issues that our constituents put us here to tackle. I thank everyone for taking part in the debate.

Animal Testing

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), who has given us a powerful depiction of what happens when things go wrong. He highlighted the importance of making sure the Government ensure an oversight and licensing regime so that things do not go wrong. He touched on different areas of policy, to which I should respond. I will start with his stories of where things have gone wrong, the push for Herbie’s law, and how we go further and faster on the removal of animals from scientific testing.

We can all probably agree that we want to phase out the use of animals in science and the strategy that colleagues in other Departments have introduced to replace animals in science shows the direction of travel. There are calls to go further and faster and of course we will listen and work with colleagues on that.

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The strategy is of course hugely welcome, but there are no timelines associated with much of the strategy. For it to work effectively and get us to where we need to be, we need timelines. Is there any indication of when timelines are likely to be made clear to us?

[Sarah Jones]

I will certainly take that question back to my colleagues who are implementing the strategy, and I have heard from other colleagues the call for a faster timeline. The science is developing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles mentioned the transformational technology that we have and the opportunities for growth. We do not know the answer to some things because the science is not yet finished, but I hear the point about pushing for change as soon as possible.

The purpose of the strategy is to phase out animal testing. That is this Government’s ambition and intention. The relevant human alternatives that we want to replace it with have to continue to protect public health and product safety, and we have to be sure that replacements are able to do that. Uncomfortable though it is, we know that the use of animals in science has enabled us to develop medicines that we would not have been able to develop otherwise would. To replace that, we need to make sure that what comes afterwards is robust. It is everybody’s ambition to have a revolution in research and innovation in this country, and to build on that and use our expertise to make sure we go as fast as possible, but I hear the call for timelines and I will talk to my colleagues about how we try to do that. The strategy has a tiered approach to identify which animal test can be replaced soonest, and which are the easier ones to get done first. I very much hear the call for a timescale for a longer-term road map.

There is great public interest in making sure that we treat animals as they should be treated when they are used in research. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles talked a lot about the work of the regulator, and how we should take a robust approach to regulation. The regulator is overseen by the Home Office Minister Lord Hanson, who signed off on a package of reform to it last year, which my hon. Friend mentioned. My hon. Friend was slightly more dismissive of it than perhaps we would be, and I heard what he said, but there has been an increase in the number of people who are able to ensure oversight and a new focus through the reform programme. It has just begun, and we need to give it a bit of time to see whether it works more effectively. I hear loud and clear his calls for the Government to ensure that the regulator is as robust as it can be.

It might be useful to look at how the regulator currently works, and then we can work together going forward. I do not know if my hon. Friend has met the regulator, but it might be worth convening something with other interested MPs, to have a conversation about the reforms and where we think things will improve. The regulator is set up to prevent compliance breaches and investigate them. If non-compliance is confirmed, the regulator has a broad range of sanctions available. There is a conversation about whether it is using all those sanctions in the way that it could. The sanctions range in severity, and my hon. Friend mentioned those at the lower end, but the regulator does have more extensive powers to act.

It might be useful to have a conversation with the regulator about how we balance self-referral. Self-referrals often come in; we have very good and honourable people doing research and using the system as it should be used. I also hear the slight question about self-referral, and whether we are in the places that we need to be as much as we should be. There is a balance in the regulatory approach and how punitive the approaches can be. We want the sector to be open and transparent, so we have to get that balance right. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that. If we are disproportionate—if that is a risk—then work gets offshored and goes elsewhere, where the systems are not anywhere near as powerful as they are in this country. We need to have proportionality in our approach to non-compliance.

We also need to understand that self-reporting is not a bad thing, but a good thing. We want a culture of care that is respectful of animals. Most incidents of non-compliance are self-reported, as I have said, and the decisions taken after that are then proportionate. Where there are more significant breaches, the sanctions are there, and we could have a conversation with the regulator about when those sanctions are imposed and when they are not.

I thank colleagues again for raising this issue. We have a strict and rigorous licensing regime, which I am partly responsible for, both for the 100-odd companies that are able to test on animals and the 13,000 individuals who have a licence to use animals in testing. The regulator is going through reform and has had its functions beefed up over the last year. We have an ambition as a Government to end the use of animals in science, but, as a Minister, I will always commit to push for more and will always listen to my colleagues for advice.

The good takeaways from this debate are that we need to understand where the regulator is coming from a bit more, what the balance is for proportionality, how we can all move forward, and, having heard the calls for more timeliness in ending the use of animals in testing, how we can work with colleagues across the Government to deliver that.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Funding Settlement 2026-27: England and Wales

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27” (HC 1638). The report sets out the Home Secretary’s determination for 2026-27 of the aggregate amounts of grants that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.

Today, the Government have set out the final police funding settlement for 2026-27, providing forces with the certainty and investment needed to strengthen neighbourhood policing, modernise frontline capability, and ensure policing can meet the demands of today and the future.

Overall funding for the policing system in England and Wales, including to police forces and wider system funding, will be up to £21.0 billion, an increase of up to £1.3 billion when compared to the 2025-26 funding settlement, representing a cash funding increase of 6.7% and a real-terms increase of 4.4%.

Total funding for territorial police forces and counter-terrorism policing will be up to £19.6 billion in 2026-27, an increase of £848 million compared with the 2025-26 police funding settlement. This represents a 4.5% increase in cash terms and a 2.2% increase in real terms for policing. Within this, total funding to territorial police forces will be up to £18.4 billion, an increase of £796 million compared with the 2025-26 settlement, representing a 4.5% cash increase and a 2.3% real-terms increase for police forces.

Of the overall increase in force level funding, £432 million is additional Government grant funding to police forces. This includes an additional £50 million to support the Government’s neighbourhood policing objectives above that announced at the provisional police funding settlement in December 2025.

The overall increase in territorial police funding also includes up to £364 million in additional funding for forces in England and Wales from council tax precept, compared to 2025-26. As confirmed in the provisional local government finance settlement published on 17 December 2025, police and crime commissioners in England will have the flexibility to increase the police precept by up to £15 for a band D property in 2025-26. This assumes PCCs make use of the full precept flexibility of £15 for English forces.

Funding for counter-terrorism policing will increase by at least £52 million to £1.2 billion in 2026-27. PCCs will receive separate, confidential notification of force level CT allocations, which are not published for security reasons.

The priority of the 2026-27 settlement is to boost visible policing and ensure forces can shape their workforce to meet modern crime demands. Every community deserves visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood policing, with officers focused on the issues that matter most locally.

In 2025-26, the Government made £200 million available to kick-start delivery of 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament. As part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has named and contactable officers dedicated to tackling local issues, with forces increasing patrols in town centres and other hotspots in line with local demand.

We have listened to the concerns raised by policing, and it is clear that the officer maintenance grant, as currently designed, has become a barrier rather than an enabler of more visible policing. A funding mechanism that, in some cases, has encouraged a higher share of officers in back office roles is no longer fit for purpose and limits forces’ ability to build a workforce with the right mix of specialist staff and warranted officers.

The Government will therefore remove the overall officer headcount target and replace it with a neighbourhood policing target in 2026-27. Forces will retain the flexibility needed to maintain operational capacity while shaping their workforce to meet changing crime demands.

The Government remain committed to the national objective of 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of the Parliament. This includes expected growth of up to 3,000 full-time equivalent by March 2026 and a further 1,750 FTE in 2026-27, bringing total neighbourhood policing growth to 4,750 FTE by March 2027.

To simplify the police funding settlement, there will be only one conditional workforce grant in 2026-27: the neighbourhood policing ringfence grant, totalling £363 million. Forces can receive this funding if, by March 2027, they increase the number of officers and PCSOs working in neighbourhood policing including those in training, in line with their locally set neighbourhood policing target.

We will make further progress to deliver the £354 million cashable savings target by 2028-29 through the police efficiency and collaboration programme. This will be achieved through focused efforts to increase policing’s ability to buy once and buy well and increase the amount of costs policing can recover for the services they provide.

The Government have published their police reform White Paper, which sets out our ambitious plans to modernise the policing system and ensure it is better structured and equipped for the future. This settlement underpins these plans with £1.4 billion of Home Office investment in the wider policing system which will:

Kick-start delivery of our programme of police reform with a £119 million investment in 2026- 27. This first-year investment will deliver new police capabilities: establishing a new national centre for AI in policing—Police.AI—which will enable the rapid and responsible adoption of AI across policing, national roll-out of live facial recognition, and investment to strengthen the use of data across policing.

Support the delivery of major law enforcement programmes which will modernise national mission-critical systems, tackling a range of threats and make our streets safer and without which policing cannot operate effectively.

Invest in tackling knife crime, through continued funding for serious violence reduction programmes in every force area, including in 20 violence reduction units, and over £28 million dedicated investment to policing through our county lines programme which has closed thousands of county lines, protected thousands of criminally exploited children and is delivering significant reductions in in knife stabbings in key force areas.

A reformed policing system will need a funding model that is fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the National Police Service require a new way of allocating funding between forces, aligned with these new structures. Through the police reform White Paper, we have committed to reviewing the police funding formula once police reform is under way and reconsidering the distribution of funding between local forces. The next steps of this work will be informed by the independent review into police force structures later this year.

This funding settlement reaffirms the Government’s strong support for policing and our commitment to empowering officers and staff to deliver safer communities and investing in a modern infrastructure and new technologies. By providing the resources needed to strengthen neighbourhood policing and maintain visible patrols, we are backing the frontline and enabling forces to respond effectively to local priorities. We are proud to stand alongside officers and staff in our shared mission to protect the public and make every street a safer place to live and work.

An attachment containing tables that document funding to police and crime commissioners for 2026-27, including police precept, can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-01-28/HCWS1285/

[HCWS1285]

Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this debate, and I thank all colleagues who have spoken today. I think it is apparent that everybody in the Chamber cares very deeply about this issue and about how we deal with the harm done to individuals, communities and society by drugs, and I hope that the same is true of everybody across the Commons. I am also very grateful to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work in this area and for conducting its inquiry. I thank all those who took part in it and who have given us the opportunity to reflect on the issues that were raised.

In the short time that I have been the Minister for Policing and Crime, I have met families who have lost loved ones through drugs, and in my own time as a constituency MP, I have regularly seen the impact of drugs. I think that we can all agree that we need to do everything we can as a country.

Dame Carol Black, who was appointed under the previous Government to be the independent adviser on drugs, has recently agreed to continue her role, for which I am very grateful. I have had the privilege of talking to her about the strategy that she developed under the previous Government and about how we think it can work. We are delivering, as the previous Government did, on the recommendations of her landmark review, which was wide-ranging. It was not just about the enforcement side—making our streets safer—but about making our communities healthier and making people better, treating them in the right way so that they can recover and thrive.

I also want to welcome Professor David Wood, the new chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His huge experience and knowledge will be invaluable, and we are really pleased to see him. We are committed to providing people who use drugs with the support that they need. There was some debate about whether we look at the role of drugs through a Home Office or a health lens; to my mind, it should be both. When I speak to the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), she is very clear that she takes a public health approach to drug and alcohol addiction and treatment.

We are investing £3.4 billion over the next three years in treatment, sustainable recovery services and peer networks that can support people in recovery with employment, housing and education. The need for the holistic approach was raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I think it is the right approach, and that £3.4 billion over the next three years will help.

There are new treatments and new ways of supporting people. I have spoken to the sector about how we make sure treatments are available not just for the traditional opioid addictions, but for new forms of addiction, whether that is ketamine or other drugs, and how we evolve slightly different approaches over time. The Home Office and the Department of Health meet together; I meet my colleague in the Department of Health who is overseeing all the treatment interventions. We want to keep on top of all the emerging evidence about what treatment is best, and we work constantly with operational partners across the country to make sure we deliver the right treatment.

On drugs harm, the need for interventions and the need to get rid of the criminal gangs that drive that practice, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), talked about the county lines programme. That programme has had a significant impact in reducing harm as well as arresting criminals, taking them off the streets and shutting down county lines. Since we came to power in July 2024 the programme has led to more than 8,000 arrests and the closure of 3,000 county lines. Importantly, in that period alone 600 vulnerable young people were supported with specialist services to build safer futures. The criminal gangs exploit children and use the drugs trade to make money; by focusing on them through the county lines programme, we have had significant success in terms of drug misuse, hospitalisations and the actual impact on the criminals being arrested.

The National Crime Agency works tirelessly on disrupting and dismantling the networks. At the UK border, through intelligence with other countries and the advanced technology that we use, we are intercepting more drugs than ever. In the year ending March 2024, Border Force seized more than 100 tonnes of drugs—the highest amount on record. We are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths throughout the UK. We of course recognise the importance of evidence-based, high-quality treatment, and will continue to take preventive public health measures to tackle drug misuse and support people to live better lives.

In the response to the Select Committee’s report, I made the Government’s position on Glasgow’s pilot drug consumption room clear. We recognise the Scottish Government’s need to tackle drug misuse. We have talked already about the statistics on the number of drug deaths in Scotland, so I will not repeat them, but they are incredibly high and we recognise that more needs to be done. We recognise that where responsibility is devolved, the Scottish Government will need to tackle drug misuse in the ways that they see fit.

The Lord Advocate has issued a statement of prosecution policy for the operation of the pilot drug consumption room in Glasgow, as has been talked about. We respect the independence of that decision. I want to be clear that we have no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to enable the operation of drug consumption rooms in any part of the United Kingdom, but we are committed to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government.

We meet collectively. The UK Government lead the UK drugs ministerial team, which is a forum for Ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That forum provides the opportunity for all four Governments to talk to one another and to come together to share challenges and best practice. The last meeting was in Edinburgh and hosted by the Scottish Government, and we will meet again this year, enabling us to talk to one another and to share information. Of course we will also work closely with the Scottish Government to enable licensed drug-checking facilities to operate lawfully.

As we have heard, chronic drug dependence plagues the lives not just of individuals, but of those closest to them. It is in all our interests to prevent people from being engulfed by that spiral, and to help those who have on to a better path. There is a determination from this Government to get it right and to look at the evidence. We are not persuaded to make any of the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and her Committee asked us to make, but that is not to say that we should not carry on talking about these issues.

The evidence-based approach that has been talked about and the review that is being done of the pilot at the Thistle are very important. I very much want to see what the evidence shows. I am committed to making sure we are always learning and always changing our approach. We met as a collective group of Ministers across Government to look at some of the problems in, for example, the prison system—we know it is a huge driver of drug use—and to see what we can do collectively across Government. When the three-year pilot of the Thistle is finished, we will of course look at that and will want to see what we can do in response. I think we collectively agree on the need to tackle drug misuse as a health issue as well as a Home Office and crime issue. This Government are doing both, but I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues in the days and months ahead to make sure we get it right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

23. What recent steps her Department has taken to help tackle rural crime.

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

Rural crime is a scourge on our communities, and this Government are taking action to tackle it. We are improving the safety of rural communities through tougher measures on equipment theft and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, farm theft and fly-tipping, backed by over £800,000 of funding for the specialist national rural and wildlife crime policing units.

[Paul Davies]

The most common and impactful rural crimes in West Yorkshire include the theft of farm machinery, fuel and livestock, incidents of livestock worrying, and wildlife and environmental offences. Increased funding for specialist units, such as the national rural crime and the national wildlife crime units, is welcome. They will help to co-ordinate and support police forces across England and Wales to target rural crime. What other actions can the Government take to help tackle such crime?

[Sarah Jones]

I am delighted to say that, since the last Home Office questions, the National Police Chiefs’ Council launched its rural and wildlife crime strategy, which we absolutely support. The Government are going further: new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce powers for the police to enter and search premises for items that have been electronically tracked and are reasonably believed to have been stolen, and we will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which will strengthen measures to tackle the theft and resale of high-value equipment, particularly that used in agricultural settings.

[Terry Jermy]

Waste crime—an increasing concern in rural areas—often has links to serious and organised crime. Just last week, the Eastern Daily Press revealed that although there were nearly 1,300 reports of waste crime in Norfolk in a five-year period, just two people have been convicted for such offences in that time. In one case in my South West Norfolk constituency, 250 bales of DIY waste were dumped on a farm, with an estimated removal cost of £250,000. Will the Minister tell the House what more the Department can do to tackle waste crime in rural areas?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend speaks about a very serious crime, and we must go further. Last year, the Government announced a huge crackdown on cowboy waste operators in order to tackle fly-tipping. To support local authorities, our Crime and Policing Bill will introduce a power to issue statutory guidance on fly-tipping enforcement, and there will be a new five-year prison term for waste cowboys. We need to crack down on that crime.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Heritage crime is a huge issue in rural communities like mine. My constituency boast some of the jewels in England’s crown—Roman town Venta Icenorum, Wyndham Abbey and the wooden henge in Arminghall—which puts us more at risk of heritage crime. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can train scrap metal dealers to be more aware of the damage that it does, and how might we record the statistics more appropriately so that we can give police the resources they need?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is lucky to have such wonderful places in his constituency. Of course I will meet him—this is a very important matter. We are supporting the work of Historic England on a number of issues to tackle heritage crime, but I am sure that we can go further, and I look forward to talking to him about it.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, car thefts and related burglaries continue to rise. Nationally, almost four in five car thefts go unsolved. This is not low-level rural crime; it is organised, highly profitable, and deeply disruptive and upsetting for families and businesses reliant on vehicles. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle organised vehicle crime, and will they back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a specialist national unit to work with police forces, such as Warwickshire police, to crack down on car crime?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady points to a very significant crime. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will be making sure that there are more neighbourhood police in our communities. We will obviously continue to work with car manufacturers to make sure we design crime out as much as we can. I would be very happy to talk to the hon. Lady about any other proposals she has, but this Government are investing more in policing and cracking down on crime.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

One crime that most concerns farmers in Hampshire and around the country is that of illegal meat imports. Last year, I visited the Port of Dover, where I was shown some of the illegal meat that had been seized. This is not only a public health issue; it puts the UK livestock industry at risk of a notifiable disease outbreak, such as foot and mouth disease. If I were caught driving illegal meat into the UK in a lorry, the authorities would not have the powers to arrest me and would not be allowed to seize the lorry, but they would have to clean my lorry and disinfect it at the taxpayer’s expense before sending me on my way. Does the Minister agree that this is absolutely crazy and will she look at how we can equip the hard-working teams at the ports with the powers needed to provide a proper deterrent to stop this meat coming in?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman points to an issue that is of course very important. We need to make sure that we do not have illegal meat coming into the country. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my colleagues on the Front Bench today will of course take these issues seriously. I am very happy to take this matter further and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Only one in 200 police officers in England and Wales is allocated to rural crime teams. In Cumbria, the situation is even worse: only five officers in 2024 were allocated to our rural crime team. Given what Members have said already today, is it not clear that people who live in very rural communities are subject not only to crime, but to an even more concentrated sense of the fear of crime, because they know that they could be 20 or 30 miles away from the nearest officer? Is it not time for the Government to think again about rural crime and make sure that every community, particularly rural counties like Cumbria, has a dedicated rural crime team that is bigger than five officers?

[Sarah Jones]

Our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies to rural as well as urban areas, and the increase of 3,000 in police numbers that we will see by next March will go across the whole country. The hon. Gentleman points to a very specific challenge. Just a few weeks ago, I was with Thames Valley police, who have a rural crime taskforce; the work they are doing and the expertise they are bringing to particular challenges faced by rural communities was very impressive, and I would like to see other forces following their lead.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to introduce new safe and legal routes for migrants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

8. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a specific offence of aggravated theft from commercial vehicles.

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

We take theft from commercial vehicles extremely seriously. These crimes are often committed by organised criminals who seek to profit from tool theft, and we are supporting law enforcement officials as they seek to disrupt these networks. Courts already have tough sentencing powers in this area, with a maximum prison sentence of seven years for theft and up to life for violent robbery.

[Dave Doogan]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker—but unfortunately for the haulage industry, 2026 promises to be a year of increasing freight crime from haulage operators up and down these islands. Whether it is Alan Davie of Forfar, Taylor’s of Forfar or McLaughlan’s of Perth, who operate up and down from Scotland to England, when drivers park up at night, they are at risk of having their loads stolen. This is a growing problem that would benefit from there being an offence for aggravated theft from commercial vehicles. I have petitioned the Scottish Government on the very same issue and I urge the Minister to look at the matter.

[Sarah Jones]

While I am always happy to keep things under review, we currently do not think that such an offence is the answer, although that is not to say that there is not a problem—there absolutely is. I will shortly be hosting industry representatives to discuss what more is required to tackle this growing and significant problem, which the hon. Gentleman is right to identify.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we have both rural and urban areas. I have had numerous people from rural areas contact me about theft from commercial vehicles, including in Quarndon. As we move forward with our police recruitment plans to get 13,000 more police officers by the end of this Parliament, may I ask that we ensure there are enough officers in rural areas to address this issue? It is particularly pertinent in those places.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. As I said earlier, our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies to all parts of the country. It is very important that we understand the particular challenges that rural communities face and that we robustly support our police, who are getting increased funding this year and will continue to be supported by us to ensure that we tackle these very significant crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

21. What recent steps her Department has taken to help increase levels of community policing.

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

As part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, every neighbourhood now has a named and contactable officer dedicated to tackling local issues, with forces increasing patrols in town centres and other hotspots based on local demand. We have also made £200 million available to police forces this financial year to kick-start the journey towards delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, including 3,000 by March 2026.

[Monica Harding]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker.

I pay tribute to the work of the police in my constituency of Esher and Walton, who have got the rate of solved burglaries up by 84%. However, while the local police are doing a great job catching burglars, they tell me that the perception that they are unable to bring those burglars to justice is making it more difficult to tackle persistent offenders and is impacting on the confidence of local residents. My constituents were incredulous recently when the borough commander told them that two individuals charged with burglary in December last year had been given a date to appear for trial in September 2027. What conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to increase the number of Crown court sitting days so that my constituents can have confidence?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Lady highlights a problem that we inherited from the previous Government, which is very considerable—we do not deny that. We in the Home Office are talking to our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice every day about how we manage the situation and increase the speed with which people are brought to justice. This Government want to see everyone who commits a crime do the time.

[Luke Murphy]

Happy new year to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, which puts named, contactable officers in every community, and indeed the increased presence of patrols in the Top of the Town in Basingstoke. However, as the Minister knows—we have corresponded on this issue—one of the issues that we in Basingstoke face is the retention of officers, with locally trained officers moving to higher-paid forces such as those in London. What more can the Department do, and what more can I do, to ensure we improve the retention of officers in Basingstoke, including to support community policing?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not just public confidence in policing that fell under the last Government but how the police felt they were treated, which affects retention. One aspect of the White Paper process and police reform is looking at how we train police, how we treat them and how we give them the support they need to do the job they want to do, rather than the bureaucracy that blights a lot of their time. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we are working closely with the police bodies to ensure that we get this right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is becoming increasingly apparent that West Midlands police retrospectively created a rationale and, according to remarkable investigative work by The Sunday Times, false evidence to justify their predetermined decision to ban fans from the world’s only Jewish state from going to a football match in Britain’s second city. Does the Minister think that the chief constable of such a force can possibly be overseeing effective community policing? How can he continue in his role?

[Sarah Jones]

The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the whole Government have been clear that we believe the wrong decision was made. We have asked the inspector to look at what happened in two parts: first, what happened around the match itself; and secondly, a wider look at the police role in relation to safety advisory groups and how decisions are made. We had been expecting that information before the end of the year, but it will be slightly delayed to take into account the recall of the West Midlands chief constable to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. We need to wait and see what the inspector says, and that is what we will do. That is the right thing to do, because these things will be considered in the round.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

14. What steps she is taking to tackle hate crime.

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

This Government are determined to tackle all forms of hate crime. We have a robust legislative framework in place to respond to hate crimes that target race, religion, sexual orientation, disability and transgender identity. The Home Secretary has also commissioned an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and fit for purpose.

[Christine Jardine]

I welcome the Minister’s comments, as I welcome the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, including the confirmation that the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 will commence in April. We know, however, that misogyny runs deeper, and attitudes and actions throughout society and on social media are damaging to women. As well as focusing on prevention and strategy in all these areas and tackling harassment, will the Minister outline the position on misogyny becoming a hate crime?

[Sarah Jones]

A review is being undertaken by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, who is looking at hate crime legislation in the round. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that we want to wait for that, so that we can understand what those recommendations are before the Home Secretary makes decisions.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling misogyny, but I am sure that Ministers will be as disgusted as I am by reports over recent weeks of users of the social media platform X being able to create sexualised images of women, including children, through its AI tool, Grok. What conversations are Ministers having across Government to ensure that we clamp down on that vile practice, which should simply not be tolerated on social media sites?

[Sarah Jones]

The Home Secretary launched the violence against women and girls strategy. She, like my hon. Friend, takes this issue seriously. We are working across Government, in particular with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister. Welcome back.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy new year.

Women are overwhelmingly the victims of hate crimes online, but that is no surprise when companies are promising that the purchase of a self-swab rape kit will deter rapists. That is plainly offensive and shifts the onus on to women and off the cowards who rape them. The kits are also inadmissible in court. We have already had a sexual assault of a child case collapse because of the use of a self-swab kit. For almost a year, rape charities have begged the Government to take action and ban these dangerous kits and their dangerous narratives. Will the Government work with me, support my campaign and commit to protecting women from self-swab rape kits?

[Sarah Jones]

The Home Office shares the concerns expressed by law enforcement and healthcare professionals about the use of self-swabbing rape kits, and are considering this matter very carefully. We always recommend attendance at a sexual assault referral centre to collect samples, regardless of whether a person decides to report an incident to the police.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

T5.   Because of antisocial behaviour, including drug dealing and public injecting, Upper Charminster community action group has activated a community safety trigger, and this month we will have a case review. I thank the group and Queen’s Park councillor Sharon Carr-Brown for their focus on antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour in Bournemouth and beyond?

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

Antisocial behaviour is a scourge that has gone untackled for too long. We are funding hotspot policing in our town centres and other areas in which antisocial behaviour is rife; that is having an impact. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will mean 3,000 more police on our streets by next March, will have an impact. We are introducing respect orders, which will be a really useful tool to tackle prolific antisocial behaviour offenders. The message has to be loud and clear: we will not accept this behaviour, and the police are responding.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

T10. Before Christmas, we had a cross-party retail crime summit in Bexhill, with the police and local council in attendance, to help shopkeepers to have their voice heard. At the same time, Katy Bourne, the Sussex police and crime commissioner, is using criminal behaviour orders in a pilot to tag prolific offenders. These are really positive initiatives. Will the Minister agree to meet us to discuss how we can further roll them out?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes. I was really pleased that charges for shop theft increased by 25% in the year to June 2025, because the police are taking these issues seriously: they are really getting in there, working with our retailers, getting the prolific offenders and tackling the issue. I am always very pleased to meet.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

T6. Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Many fantastic businesses in my constituency are facing daily struggles with crime. Many shop workers and police have to face issues with aggressive behaviour and shoplifting. Many of the people doing it are repeat offenders who have already been arrested and released for similar crimes. The police are doing all they can, but the system is allowing offenders to return to exactly the same place, ensuring that the cycle of violence and harassment can continue. When the system is flawed, the community is let down and the police are already overstretched, does the Minister agree that offenders should not be allowed to return to the area and the businesses in which they have committed their offences? Will she meet me, local businesses, local shop workers and local police to find a solution?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right: 20% of offenders are responsible for 80% of crime. We need to ensure that repeat offenders are targeted, and that is what the police are doing. There is a raft of tools that we can use, but partnerships between the police and the retail sector are key. The number of shop theft charges has increased, but we need to look at other measures, such as treatment when people have drug addiction and other such issues. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Sussex police is one of the most underfunded forces in England, with the number of officers per resident 27% below the national average. Following the national decrease in police officers during the first year of this Government, will the Home Secretary commit to ensuring that police officer numbers go up in 2026?

[Sarah Jones]

I will just repeat the statistic: 94% of the fall in officer headcount in 2024-25 came during the last four months of the previous Government. Total funding for 2026-27 is £18.3 billion, which is a £746 million increase on the previous year.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T8.  Cambridge University Press & Assessment has long experience of conducting in-country English tests for those seeking to come to the UK, but it is concerned that the Home Office is moving too quickly to a new digital system whereby applicants do not have to attend in person to be tested. It fears that the scope for impersonation remains too high, so will the Minister review that change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, a crime is a crime wherever it takes place. Can the Minister set out what steps she will take to ensure that rural crime in my constituency and across Staffordshire is always treated with the same urgency as crime that takes place in our town and city centres?

[Sarah Jones]

We are supporting and working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on its new rural crime strategy, and we are working very closely with local police forces such as Thames Valley police, which has a rural crime team tackling these issues. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee applies everywhere, and all areas—rural or urban—must have the right number of people in their local community tackling crime.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

It is widely reported that the Home Secretary is a strong supporter of robust reform of the European Court of Human Rights. A large number of countries on the European continent share our concerns over that. Has she discussed them with any of her opposite numbers? In particular, where does she see the common interest in reforming the Court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

On 7 October the police told a private meeting that they planned to ban Israeli fans from Villa Park. That was, to quote the minutes,

“in the absence of intelligence”.

On 9 October they accepted that they needed to find a more clear rationale for the decision already made. On 16 October they said they suddenly found significant intelligence for a ban. That supposedly came from a conversation with the Dutch police on 1 October, before the first meeting held in the “absence of intelligence”. Does the Home Secretary believe West Midlands police—yes or no?

[Sarah Jones]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have asked His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to look at that and we are waiting to see what it has to say. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Did we disagree with the decision? Yes, we did. Do we want to get to the bottom of what happened? Absolutely, we do.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

In relation to the changes, announced at the end of last year, to indefinite leave to remain, my constituent Dr Matthew Hewitt advises on an issue relevant to his family and many other families across the country: that the information being put out by the Government is ambiguous as to whether or not the shorter five-year route will remain for those currently on partner visas, or whether the baseline changes to 10 years will apply to those currently on those partner visas. I would be grateful for some clarity on that, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

Does the Minister agree that far too much resource is being spent on exceedingly heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests, which is likely to increase with plans to restrict protests based on their supposed cumulative impact, as planned in the Crime and Policing Bill?

[Sarah Jones]

No, I disagree with my hon. Friend on that. Policing protests is always a balance that we have to get right: we have to respect the right to protest, but we also have to ensure the police have the powers they need to tackle issues and ensure that protests can happen peacefully, as they have done for so many years in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

With congratulations on his engagement, I call Ben Obese-Jecty.

Provisional Police Funding Settlement 2026-27

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

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

Total funding for police forces, including Counter Terrorism Policing, will be up to £19.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of up to £798 million compared to the 2025-26 police funding settlement. Total funding to territorial police forces will be up to £18.3 billion, an increase of up to £746 million compared to 2025-26. This equates to a 4.2% cash increase and a 2.0% real terms increase for police forces. For police and crime commissioners in England the council tax referendum threshold will be £15 for a band D property.

Funding for Counter Terrorism Policing will increase by at least £52 million to £1.2 billion in 2026- 27. Police and crime commissioners will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for Counter Terrorism Policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.

We will publish a police reform White Paper in early 2026 which will set out a vision to bring policing into the modern age with the technology, innovation and structures they need to ensure policing can focus on the crimes that matter to the public and to drive out waste and inefficiency. As with previous years, a copy of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27” will be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the new year.

An accompanying table that outlines policing bodies’ proposed total funding for 2026-27 can be viewed online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-12-18/HCWS1216/

[HCWS1216]

Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will begin with the context in which we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. The life sciences industry is vital to this country. It provides crucial research, particularly in the medical sphere, and plays a central role in pandemic preparedness capabilities. The experience of recent years has demonstrated that that risk cannot be ignored, and we must be prepared at all times to respond to such a crisis.

The Government’s goal is for the UK to become a global beacon for scientific discovery. The life sciences sector employs more than 350,000 people and generates almost £150 billion in turnover annually. It is integral to the development of new treatments and, crucially, the safety-testing of new medicines and vaccines. The importance of that activity in responding to the covid-19 outbreak cannot be overstated.

Recent protest activity has deliberately targeted the life sciences sector, threatening the UK’s sovereign capability to produce vaccines and therapies, and disrupting supply chains vital to research and national health protection. The legislation before the Committee will address that by amending section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, to add the life sciences sector to its list of key national infrastructure. That will make it a criminal offence to deliberately or recklessly disrupt life sciences infrastructure or interfere with its use or operation. Anyone convicted of that offence will face a penalty of up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a fine or both. In turn, this change will strengthen the ability of the police to respond to disruptive protest activity that is undermining our national health resilience.

The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.

Hon. Members may be aware of the Government’s recently published strategy setting out a vision for a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but exceptional circumstances. We are absolutely committed to that goal, but at the same time we will not hesitate to fulfil our duty to protect the citizens of this country and our national health infrastructure and resilience.

Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. We have debated it many times in this House and will continue to do so. We will always defend that right, but where disruption threatens medical progress and risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a public health emergency, we must take action to protect key infrastructure and supply chains. As a Government, we have a duty to protect the UK’s ability to innovate, respond and save lives. This instrument will aid us in that effort, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I am not surprised that there is so much interest in the debate. Animal welfare and the right to protest are two of the most fundamental values of being British, and two things we fight for: we love our animals, and nobody wants unnecessary animal testing—indeed, it is against the law—and of course the right to protest is absolute. As the shadow Minister said, when was were in opposition, much legislation went through about protest, and there was much debate. There is more debate to come on how we manage protest.

I want to consider the two issues separately. The first, animal testing, is obviously a Home Office matter where it involves protest, but I will veer into topics about which hon. Members who have had many years of work in this area will know more than I do. The Home Office is responsible for the licensing of testing; there are 135 places around the country where we allow testing, and there is a very rigorous regime.

As some Members have mentioned, the three Rs system operates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. There is also a three-tier licensing regime whereby we license the establishment itself, we license the project—the thing that that establishment is doing—and we license individuals. Across the country, thousands of people are licensed. In licensing a project we do a harm/benefit analysis. If it is possible to use any testing other than on animals, it is the law that that should be done. We are really clear on that.

It was mentioned that we have some of the strongest legislation in this space, and we have some of the strongest animal welfare legislation in any country. I am very proud of that, and this Labour Government will continue to protect and defend animal welfare. The reality at the moment, though, is that testing is done on animals in order to produce medicines or vaccines. During the covid pandemic, dogs—which have been mentioned a lot—were not tested for the vaccine, but monkeys, rats and mice were. In that moment of national crisis, we had to produce a vaccine that saved lives. As hon. Members can appreciate, ensuring that we are prepared for a second pandemic is very high on this Government’s risk register. We must ensure that we have what we need in this country; as has been said, if we do not, those things will be done elsewhere—potentially in countries where there are not the stringent rules and laws around animal welfare that we have.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is my recollection that we were locked down during the pandemic when much of this science was being undertaken, so people would not have been able to protest anyway. When we face such extreme circumstances, I think the country understands, but this provision is far broader in scope, and if that is the Government’s intent, I have to press the Minister on why that is not written in the legislation.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her powerful speech, which I respect; I understand where it is coming from. During the covid pandemic there was separate legislation that stopped people gathering, which is why people could not protest at the time. We have had conversations—I know that Lord Vallance in his work has had multiple conversations—with industry in which it has explained that it cannot, in some cases, function and do the things we currently need it to do because of the levels of protest. Some protests are more high-profile than others, but all 135 sites potentially are subject to protests of different degrees.

My fundamental point on animal welfare is that we only use the testing where we absolutely have to. The research that this Government are funding to deliver alternatives, and the strategy that Lord Vallance has brought in, will take us towards a virtual dog that we can use. There is new technology that will get us to where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and in the interim we need to protect those who are working, so that we can continue to do what we need to do in terms of the production of medicines.

The second element is protest and rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, 10 years ago in this place there was a high-profile piece of campaigning particularly about testing on beagles, and I seem to remember that it got quite a lot of press coverage. Assurances were given then that we were on a journey to phasing that out, but we have no idea what has happened in that interim decade. That is the problem. The Minister can reassure us now that we are on that pathway again, but how can we have any confidence that it will not take another decade—or several? As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, it has been 40 years since he started pushing for this.

[Sarah Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend sees that we have had a change of Government; this Labour Government have published a document about replacing animals in science, which is a serious piece of work. As she will know, our manifesto stated that

“we will partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing.”

That is what we want to do; we want to do this together with scientists and civil society, and this is our opportunity to do so. I know that Lord Vallance is absolutely committed to getting this right and to going as fast as we can, obviously within the parameters of ensuring that we can still produce the medicines we need.

[Irene Campbell]

I very much welcome the strategy, but it contains no timeline whatsoever for when testing on dogs will end, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

[Sarah Jones]

It is important that Members help us with the strategy; if they have not done so already, I suggest that they sit down with Lord Vallance to talk about this.

[Irene Campbell]

I have.

[Sarah Jones]

I am sure my hon. Friend made her points with the same passion that she has spoken with this afternoon.

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

I am a fierce defender of animal welfare— I always will be—and I believe that we are not moving quickly enough to phase out animal testing, but does the Minister agree that the pace is not what the draft regulations are principally about? They are quite tightly drafted Home Office regulations on the powers for police to respond to disruptive and illegal activity at our vaccine sites, which affects our pandemic preparedness.

We in Teesside have a Fujifilm facility near Stockton— the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West will know it well—and Teessiders were very proud to produce the vaccine there during the covid pandemic. As we phase out animal testing, we must not hamper that ability—that is what today’s debate is all about.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.

The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.

We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.

[Olivia Blake]

Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.

Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.

To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere

“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.

That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.

[John McDonnell]

Sorry, but I am slightly bewildered. If the Minister is saying that the Government are undertaking a review of existing powers, I welcome that. That will not be published for a number of months, but this is how the police are exercising their powers at the moment. To be frank, many people who have been involved in protests and negotiations with police are critical about how the police have interpreted those powers, and we believe they have sometimes gone well beyond the legislation. The Minister is saying that the Government share some of those concerns and are reviewing the use of those powers, but at the same time, in advance of the publication of that review, we are extending powers to the police in other areas. I find that baffling. All that I think hon. Members are asking for is for this to be properly debated before we rush ahead with giving police powers that could result in people being imprisoned for 12 months and having a criminal record for the rest of their lives.

[Sarah Jones]

My right hon. Friend has debated these issues for years, and he is right to defend the right to protest. I know that there have been many years of protests at Heathrow, and that is a way for people to get their voices heard. We are introducing this legislation now because our sovereign capability needs to be protected. We are adding life sciences, but we are not changing any of the thresholds. We are also reviewing legislation across the board on protest and hate crime. Lord Macdonald is doing that for the Home Secretary. That review was prompted in part by recent protests and the conversations we have had with many different groups, including the Jewish community, about protests and how we police them in a measured way.

Members are concerned about how this measure will be implemented and where it will end. That has been raised quite a lot, but this is a relatively small amendment to the legislation. We are not curtailing the right for people to protest peacefully. There will be operational guidance on how it will work through the authorised professional practice from the College of Policing and guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

It is important to say that we want to work with our police colleagues on this legislation, and that the vast majority of protests are policed brilliantly. Ministers have said in this place before and we will say it again. Where there is interaction between the police and the community groups that are protesting, it is agreed what the route will be, what the parameters will be and what the timescales are. The vast majority of the many protests that happen across the country are peaceful.

There are contentious protests, and it is problematic when where a protest will go has not been agreed with the policing community, but our police are very well trained in this. They will take this legislation and interpret it, but they will be trained to interpret it as well. Public order training is very comprehensive, and I will be monitoring—as will Parliament—how this legislation is implemented.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have to say that, after listening carefully to her speech, I now have even greater concerns about trade unionists taking legal industrial action outside facilities. That would clearly disrupt the infrastructure and the operation of that infrastructure, which would fall under the wording of this legislation. Therefore, we could end up criminalising trade unionists for taking legitimate industrial action because of the disruption it causes—protest does cause disruption, after all.

As a result of that, I think that, as the Labour party—the party of the trade unions—we need to take this incredibly seriously. I am sure that is an unintended consequence, but that is a problem that comes with poorly drafted legislation. I therefore really do ask the Minister to review the detailed wording of the legislation to ensure that that situation could never occur.

[Sarah Jones]

That would not occur. The right to strike is protected in legislation, and it is a defence for a person charged—as it is under the existing legislation. As I have said, this has not changed the parameters of the existing legislation; it has just added a definition. It is a defence for a person charged, and the right to strike is one that people have. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with more detail about the specific way that this legislation will work, but I want to reassure her that that is not what would happen in that context.

The two aspects of this debate are the testing of animals and peaceful protest. The parameters of this statutory instrument are about protest. To reiterate, peaceful protest is completely fundamental to our society, and a right that this Government will always defend.

[Matt Vickers]

When in opposition, the Labour party said that this stuff was already covered by the legislation. Now, Labour is saying that we need to extend that legislation. Are there any examples of protests that will be covered by this measure that are not covered by existing legislation?

[Sarah Jones]

Yes; that is why we are introducing it. The powers that the police have now, and the powers that they will have when this is added to section 7 of the 2023 Act, will mean that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales. That is not a power that we had before. Where disruption or interference risks undermining our sovereign capability to prepare for and respond to a pandemic, we have a responsibility to act. The life sciences industry is of vital importance to this country, and it must be protected. That is why we have brought forward this instrument, which I commend to the Committee once again.

Question put.

Knife Sellers Licensing Consultation

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

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

As part of the Government’s aim to halve knife crime within a decade, and in line with their manifesto commitment, the previous Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council knife crime lead, to conduct a review of online sales of knives.

The “Independent End-to-End Review of Online Knife Sales”¹ was published on 19 February and made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of a registration scheme for sellers and importers of knives. The Government accepted the most important recommendations immediately, and this included legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill for stronger age checks for online sales and delivery of knives, and the reporting by retailers of bulk purchases of knives online. The Government also committed to launching a public consultation to explore whether registration for sellers, in the form of a licensing scheme, should be put in place for anyone selling knives, whether online or offline.

The consultation will launch today, and it will run for a 10-week period, closing on 24 February 2026. A copy of the consultation and related options assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on gov.uk.

¹Independent end-to-end review of online knife sales: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-end-to-end-review-of-online-knife-sales

[HCWS1178]

Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board: Annual Report

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the annual report of the Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board for 2024-25. This report covers the national DNA database and the national fingerprints database.

The strategy board chair, Assistant Chief Constable Simon Wilson, has presented the annual report to the Home Secretary under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(8) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The report highlights the continued, fundamental value of DNA and fingerprints in the provision of vital evidence and intelligence to support police investigations and the criminal justice system in bringing offenders to justice, protecting and supporting victims, and preventing harm to potential future victims.

I am grateful to the strategy board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.

The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office and also on gov.uk.

[HCWS1142]