Tag: Sarah Jones

  • Sarah Jones – 2026 Speech at the Police Superintendents’ Association Conference

    Sarah Jones – 2026 Speech at the Police Superintendents’ Association Conference

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Policing Minister, in Stratford on 15 September 2026.

    Last week, I stood with the policing family and the people of Cleveland to honour PC Blades and PC Clough at their funerals, just as I stood earlier in the year at the funeral of PC Jess Turnbull, who was only 19.

    Along with PC Corke, PC Najeeb, PC Chester. Six officers have died since this time last year, and I know the impact of that will still be raw for everybody, especially those who knew and worked alongside those officers who lost their lives.

    I realise too that the work doesn’t stop just because someone has lost their life and something dreadful has happened. You and your colleagues have to carry on serving your communities despite the shock and sadness, and I saw that in Cleveland on the two days that I was there.

    So let me say clearly, on behalf of the government, that we value you, we cherish you, and we stand by you today and always.

    In honouring the memory of those officers who have lost their lives, and all the officers and staff who have died in the line of duty, we have a responsibility to give thanks for their service and their sacrifice, and that of every man and woman who goes to work every day with a singular aim: keeping the rest of us safe.

    While recent events have brought that responsibility to the fore in the most painful way, it is something that has been at the forefront of my mind ever since I was appointed a year ago. And it’s why I was also so proud to have been reappointed to this post when Andy Burnham became Prime Minister, and to have the opportunity to carry on our work together.

    Looking back at my speech here last year, I observed that I was not a police officer and, much to the relief of the people you serve, that remains the case today.

    The point I was making then about not knowing everything and the need to work together, I can see even more clearly now. 

    Because the last 12 months have taught me so much.

    About the challenges of policing in an online age. About the split-second operational decisions in situations the rest of us can barely comprehend. About the painstaking investigations carried out over months and years to tackle the most dangerous threats.

    And the obstacles, the really frustrating obstacles, that stop the service performing to the levels it could reach. And, perhaps most of all, about the enduring courage that is the hallmark of British policing.

    So, my first message to you all – and please convey this to your teams – is one of heartfelt thanks. 

    Not just for the high-profile operations and feats of supreme bravery, but also for the work that often goes unseen but matters so much, from daily acts of local police work, to securing the entire country.

    There are few, if any, public services with such a broad and crucial role in our national life. No one understands that better than you.

    As operational leaders, you are uniquely placed within the system, helping to shape your forces’ long-term strategies in a range of critical areas, as well as overseeing the work of those grappling with the realities of fighting crime and protecting the public on the ground.

    Over the last year I have tried to talk to, go and see as many front-line teams as possible to build my understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the service. In doing so I have sought to strengthen the lines of communication between forces and the government. 

    In one way or another, you will have contributed to that. In fact, I would guess there is no item or issue that crosses my desk without some level of superintendent involvement, and I am grateful for that.

    One of the topics I spoke about last year was having a shared sense of mission and going on this journey together. I think we can all agree that has not always been the case. But it is something we have worked hard to get right.

    While there is undoubtedly much more to be done, we can reflect on some really significant achievements. 

    To start with an issue that matters a lot to me personally because of where I live and the people that I represent, we are making really good progress across the country in our mission to halve knife crime in a decade.  

    Overall knife crime has fallen by 11%. Knife homicides are down by 26%. Hospital admissions for stabbings are down 13%. Knife-enabled robberies are down by 16%. And we have taken more than 63,000 knives off our streets.

    And the impact of all this work can’t be overstated. Our communities are safer as a result.

    There is, of course, much more to do, and earlier this year we published a plan setting out how we want to go further in key areas including prevention and policing. 

    Neighbourhood policing has been a big focus for us. Through the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, we delivered more than 3,800 officers and PCSOs into neighbourhood policing roles, which exceeded our target for the first year.

    This means more visible neighbourhood policing, and a greater focus on the issues that matter most to local communities. Building on that strong start, we need to keep going as we work towards the target of 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament.

    And that’s about more than just numbers. We are also restoring the link between policing and communities with named, contactable officers for every neighbourhood and guaranteed 72-hour response times for neighbourhood queries.  

    I’ve just come before here from a visit in Coventry, where I was talking to local police officers tackling antisocial behaviour, dodgy vape shops, the challenges that we know our communities care about so much, the value of neighbourhood policing, the intelligence and the wisdom that they have was there to see, and it is on every visit that I go on.

    Our use of technology also continues to grow. Take facial recognition for example. I have seen that in my own constituency, catching wanted rapists and robbers, taking them off the streets. 

    The benefits to public safety are clear, and we are tripling the number of live facial recognition units across the country.

    Knife crime, neighbourhood policing and technology – these are just some of the areas where we have taken really important strides forward together. 

    But none of us would suggest it’s plain sailing. We still face significant challenges. 

    I know the demand placed on policing is a source of constant concern for you.

    Nick and I have had this conversation many times, and I appreciate it and I understand it. Our task together is to find ways of reducing and effectively managing that demand.

    I spent the weekend on the phone with a constituent, who was a young girl who had mental health problems, who’d been in and out of mental health hospitals, and had been arrested by the police because of her behaviour on the street.

    And the police were having to look after her all weekend because there was nowhere else for her to go. That will be something that you all recognise, and is one of the challenges that we know we face. So together we have to find ways to reduce demand and head off the pressures that we can see.

    The Police Efficiency and Collaboration Programme is cutting unnecessary bureaucracy. Again, something that when I speak to rank and file officers, they always talk about and show me.

    We need to modernise those outdated processes while working to free forces from responding to incidents that would be best dealt with by other agencies, like mental health continues under the Right Care Right Person approach. 

    We are also investing in responsible AI, such as audio-visual redaction tooling.

    Previously, trained police officers, as you know, were spending hours, sometimes days, painstakingly drawing black boxes frame by frame around digital footage as part of case file preparation.

    Over the last two years, we have been supporting the majority of forces with AI software that does this in minutes, freeing up around 1 million hours a year for redeployment if adopted nationally.

    And last month, I announced a new AI-enabled 101 triage system, which will drastically reduce the 4 million calls policing gets a year that are actually for other organisations. 

    We all know there are processes and procedures that make policing more difficult. Often for good, and valid reasons. But sometimes because that is how it has always been done. 

    Where this is the case, we want to know about it and we want to help find the solution. We can, for example, better use the tools officers already have to reduce the time spent on briefing at the start of a shift. How can we help on that?

    We’re working with industry, and there will no doubt be many areas that are ripe for progress as technology continues to evolve.

    Technology offers many opportunities for good. But it also brings risk. 

    To say that criminals today are tech-savvy is an understatement.

    We see this across a range of threats from fraud to child sexual abuse, serious violence to drug-dealing, and the generation of deep fake sexual imagery without consent. 

    It is not enough merely to keep pace with these evolving threats. We need to get ahead of them – and we are supporting you to find ways to do that, including through PoliceAI, the new national centre dedicated to the responsible development, testing and scaling of AI across all forces in England and Wales.

    We know, too, that you and your colleagues are operating in a complex and contested environment. Some of the most acute challenges facing our society play out in our streets, with implications for policing.   

    It wasn’t long after this conference last year that we had that appalling act of terrorism at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. 

    And this terrible trend of violence towards British Jews has continued this year, with a series of arson incidents in London, as well as the attack in Golders Green in April.

    In response, we have ramped up resources for policing and protective security, so that our Jewish communities can have the safety and the confidence they deserve. 

    Clearly, it’s going to be a major area of focus for us all in the days, weeks and months ahead, especially at the moment during the High Holy Days. 

    We know, too, that the escalation in hatred and hostility isn’t confined to antisemitism. The threat faced by British Muslims has also grown, demanding an equally robust response from us all.

    As recent events show, public order remains a complex and challenging issue. We had the incidents in Dover and Portsmouth just 10 days ago.

    And I would reiterate the point that the Home Secretary made to your chief constables last week, about the need to move quickly and effectively, making full use of available powers.

    While the right to protest is an essential part of our democracy and one we must and always will protect, I also recognise the pressure policing such events place on your forces.

    There is, undoubtedly, a strong appetite for greater clarity across the service. 

    And that’s why the Home Secretary asked Lord Macdonald to review the public order and hate crime framework. Lord Macdonald has submitted his findings and we will publish them, and our response, soon. 

    Let me turn to resources. This government remains committed to supporting the police mission and has increased police funding by £2 billion since being elected.

    As we change police force structures, the case for changing the funding formula is also well made. 

    We are committed to a proper review of the police funding formula to ensure that force funding is fair and keeps the public safe. A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures. 

    Ultimately, we’re looking to ensure that more resources meet the frontline. 

    The successes we have had and the challenges we face are, in a sense, two sides of the same coin. Our achievements to date show what can be done when we work in tandem. 

    Driving down serious threats, becoming smarter and more modern in our approach and keeping a clear focus on the issues that matter most to our communities. When done to the world-class standards we know are possible, the potential of policing is enormous. 

    At the same time, that potential can only be realised if we set up the system for success, which brings me to police reform.

    We would all agree that policing is performing remarkably well given that much of the current system dates back to the 1960s. It is no longer well suited to the nature of modern crime or public expectations.  

    The fundamental issue is that policing is currently neither properly local enough nor properly national enough. Too often, officers and staff are having to work around existing structures rather than being supported by them.

    At present, there’s a heavy reliance on voluntary collaboration, part-time leadership arrangements and securing agreement across all 43 forces, which can make meaningful change really difficult to deliver.

    As a result, policing is not making the best possible use of data and technology, is not supporting and developing its workforce consistently, and it risks being outpaced by increasingly sophisticated criminal networks.

    Policing must evolve to meet modern crime and public expectations. At the local level, it needs to be organised closer to communities and more responsive to local priorities. At the national level, it must be better equipped to tackle increasing complex, cross-border threats. 

    The Police Reform White Paper set out our plans for the biggest structural changes in 200 years.

    At the heart of this programme is a commitment to strengthen local policing through the introduction of stronger and more empowered Local Policing Areas.  

    We’ll establish the National Police Service to tackle national threats, deliver national capabilities and support forces to provide a more consistent service to the public. 

    And we will introduce a force structure that reduces duplication, improves resilience and addresses the inefficiencies of maintaining 43 separate HR, finance and support functions, while ensuring forces have sufficient scale and capability to respond to major incidents.

    Reform isn’t just a structural exercise. 80% of the total police budget is spent on people. The officers and staff who invest heavily in their careers, who are the service’s most vital asset.  

    We are developing a new Police Workforce Strategy to ensure policing has the right people, with the right skills, in the right places, at the right time. 

    Strong, ethical and consistent leadership at every level is essential. Lord Blunkett and Lord Herbert’s report on that subject made a number of really important recommendations.

    We are actively going through all of those now with police leaders, and we will publish our full response to that in the autumn.

    I know people are hungry to get going on those changes, and that Lord Herbert, that I think you’ve already seen, is pushing us to go faster. And of course, you understand and recognise that.

    We are also committed to addressing longstanding concerns with accountability systems to drive up standards and improve both the public and police’s confidence.

    Yesterday, you heard from Jason Beer KC, who the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor recently appointed alongside Dame Lynne Owens to lead an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We really look forward to receiving their findings, and we absolutely recognise, as Nick said, how important that is for policing.

    To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, policing cannot remain the same and that is clear. But what will never change is our commitment and the public’s commitment to supporting you and your families.

    The Police Covenant is central to that. And we are putting support for officers and staff at the heart of our police reform, with a package of measures backed by £2.4 million in additional funding this year.

    This is about doing right by those who put themselves under extraordinary pressure every day, facing situations that most people could barely imagine. And going to remarkable lengths to keep the rest of us safe.

    For what we ask of you and your colleagues, the least we can do, as a society, is make sure help is there when needed.

    That is the rationale behind the funding I mentioned. But we must go further. 

    I can therefore announce that I will ask His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to provide an assessment of the current support landscape, and to consider what more needs to be done at force and national level to drive improvements in this area.

    And your role in this can’t be overstated. No one knows better than you what your teams need and how to manage them through a period of change. Put simply: this successful reform programme will live or die on you and on all of us working together.    

    Before I wrap up, a word of thanks and appreciation must go to Nick and his team for organising this conference. Thanks too, to the whole PSA membership for all that you do in the name of keeping people safe.

    Finally, I spoke at the beginning about the developments since we were last together a year ago, and I want to return to that theme in closing. 

    Perhaps the biggest change is that we have a new Prime Minister. He has spoken very clearly about his determination to lift up our country and restore hope.

    Everyone in this room and the teams they lead are integral to that effort. Because for people to realise their potential, they must be safe. And for communities to flourish, they must be secure.

    That is our mission. And if we build on the momentum we have generated over this past year, I know we can and will succeed.

    Thank you very much.

  • Sarah Jones – 2026 Statement on UK Policing and the EU Vehicle Registration Tool

    Sarah Jones – 2026 Statement on UK Policing and the EU Vehicle Registration Tool

    The statement made by Sarah Jones, the Minister for Policing and Crime, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2026.

    From today, UK police will have access to an EU tool to check vehicle and keeper details to support criminal investigations. This reciprocal data sharing will provide an additional avenue of investigation in tackling cross-border crime as well as serious crimes committed in the UK.

    This capability will play a crucial role in assisting police in the UK and across Europe in cracking down on a multitude of crimes including trafficking of illicit substances, sexual offences and serious assaults (including murder). It will also assist the police in monitoring suspicious activity such as minor driving-related offences.

    A simple search on a secure web portal will return results in 10 seconds and, in the case of a match, will provide police with the name of the vehicle keeper and important information about the vehicle. The results will also include markers on cars flagged as stolen, which can be used by police forces in helping to tackle the issue of car theft in the UK.

    Vehicle registration data exchanges are provided for in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement and this step will contribute to our ongoing efforts to deepen the close co-operation between UK law enforcement and their European counterparts.

  • Sarah Jones – 2026 Comments on Falling Knife Crime

    Sarah Jones – 2026 Comments on Falling Knife Crime

    The comments made by Sarah Jones, the Crime and Policing Minister, on 5 April 2026.

    We are shutting down more criminal lines, busting more gang leaders and seizing more dangerous knives off our streets than ever before.

    I will not rest in the relentless pursuit of these horrific criminals that leave a trail of violence and exploitation in their wake.

    The Government will halve knife crime within a decade, saving lives and protecting communities.

  • Sarah Jones – 2025 Statement on British Steel

    Sarah Jones – 2025 Statement on British Steel

    The statement made by Sarah Jones, the Minister for Industry, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the steps the Government have taken since the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 came into force.

    The Government took the decision to recall Parliament on 12 April so that we could take swift, significant action on British Steel. As hon. Members will be aware, that was the first time Parliament had sat on a Saturday in over 40 years. Our attendance in this place was testament to the urgency and importance of the issue at hand, which was the need to prevent the immediate closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe. The action we took on 12 April and the measures we have taken since matter greatly for this country, and are of enormous importance to thousands of steelworkers and their families. I am very pleased to inform the House that this afternoon, British Steel has cancelled the redundancy consultations started by Jingye. I know that many British Steel employees will breathe a sigh of relief at that news.

    It is regrettable that when this Government took office, we inherited a steel sector in crisis, and an iconic British company facing an existential threat. Since day one, we have worked tirelessly with British Steel and the trade unions to find a resolution, because blast furnace closures at Scunthorpe is an outcome that this Government were simply not willing to allow. I want to stress that this kind of state intervention is not something that we intend to replicate in other situations, or for other industries. We recognised that unprecedented action was warranted in a truly unprecedented situation.

    As hon. Members will know, the legislation we introduced, which was passed that weekend, gave us the power to direct British Steel’s board and workforce, ensure they got paid, and order the raw materials to keep the blast furnaces running. It also permits the Government to do those things themselves, if the circumstances demand it. We have wasted no time in enacting those powers and taking the urgent action required to keep the blast furnaces lit at Scunthorpe. We have secured the raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces operating, and we continue to work at pace to secure a steady pipeline of materials. Officials were on site to help British Steel within hours of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 becoming law, and we are already seeing the real-world impact of our decisive intervention.

    I am delighted to say that British Steel has also confirmed today that it can keep operating both of the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces. By contrast, Jingye’s plan was to shut one of them down earlier this month. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear that the company’s workforce, their families, suppliers and communities have expressed deep gratitude for the action we have taken, which has preserved steelmaking at Scunthorpe and safeguarded thousands of skilled steel jobs.

    Now that the immediate emergency has passed, it is right that hon. Members also ask questions about what is next. We have been clear that in order to secure the long-term future of British Steel, which has not been properly invested in for years, we will need a modernisation programme, ideally with a private sector partner. Furthermore, we will need to look beyond any individual company, and ensure a secure and thriving future for the whole steel sector. That is why we are continuing our work to publish the steel strategy this spring.

    All options are on the table as we begin to address the company’s long-term sustainable future. My officials met Jingye on 16 April. It was a respectful conversation, and that dialogue will continue as we find a way forward in the national interest that safeguards steelmaking and protects jobs. With that in mind, I also want to say thank you—thank you to those who sent us messages to say we did the right thing to save British Steel, thank you to everyone who offered practical support and, most importantly, thank you to the workers and managers at British Steel who have heard our call to produce the steel that we need to deliver our plan for change, to keep the Scunthorpe site and everyone working at it safe, and to do so in a way that reduces the scale of financial losses. They have shown remarkable resilience and dedication at a supremely difficult time, and have served the plant, their community and the nation. They have promised us that there are better days ahead for British Steel, and we agree. We are giving them the chance they need to write the next chapter of British Steel’s history.

    We have assured this House time and again that steel has a bright future under this Government, and I restate that today. Steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength and to our identity as a global power, and we will never hesitate to protect it. We have committed to update both Houses as policy develops and a longer-term strategy is formulated. I reaffirm that written updates will be forthcoming regularly. So let there be no doubt: this week is not the end. It is not the end of the work, and it is not the end of the negotiations, but thanks to the actions we have taken, it is also not the end of British Steel. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Independent Cultural Review of London Fire Brigade

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Independent Cultural Review of London Fire Brigade

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 27 November 2022.

    Here we have an urgent question on shocking standards in the fire service, and we have a statement later on appalling conditions in Manston. The Home Secretary is not here for either of those—why not? Where is she?

    The report is grim: firefighters huddled around a screen watching porn; putting bacon in the sandwich of a Muslim colleague; and hanging a noose around the locker of a black co-worker—a pack mentality and systematic failure to stamp it out. Some 2,000 firefighters in London have told their story, thanks in large part to Linda Francois, the mother of Jaden, who tragically lost his own life. She campaigned for this report, and we welcome the immediate action that Andy Roe, the commissioner, is taking.

    However, these shocking findings are not news to anyone. The Government have been put on notice time and again about cultural failings in our fire service. In 2015, an independent review in Essex found dangerous and pervasive bullying; in 2018, the inspectorate found failings in culture, values and the grievance process; in 2019 the inspectorate warned of an unchecked, toxic culture in many services; and in 2021, it found that change was urgently needed.

    What was the Government’s response? It was a haemorrhaging of the budget on training, ignoring the warnings from the inspectorate and playing politics with our fire service. We have repeatedly said that when it comes to police failures we have had enough of the Home Office sitting back and leaving things to individual forces. Will the Minister immediately commission a fundamental review of national standards and culture in our fire service? Will he agree, now, to publishing national statistics on misconduct and will he today commit to national professional standards?

    There were 11,000 fires across London alone last year. Our brave firefighters run into danger every day. We must expect the best from all of them and stamp out this culture of misogyny and racism. The Government must end their complacency and act.

    Chris Philp

    I assure the hon. Lady that there is not any complacency. She should be aware—I am sure she is—of the White Paper published just a few months ago setting out a range of measures to tackle shocking cultural issues such as those we have heard discussed this afternoon.

    The hon. Lady asked about national standards. As I said in my opening comments, the Fire Standards Board is in the process of publishing a number of standards that will be publicly available and that we will expect fire services to abide by. Those, of course, will be inspected against. She asked about issues outside the London Fire Brigade. I agree that those need attention, and we will be discussing with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services what work it can do to look at behavioural and cultural issues such as these across the whole country.

    Obviously, we will respond to the White Paper consultation shortly. In the meantime, we will of course be working with Commissioner Andy Roe, who I spoke to on Friday, about the issue. As the report relates to London, I will also be in touch with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who of course has responsibility for oversight of the London Fire Brigade.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Supported Housing Bill

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Supported Housing Bill

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). For a long time we had a railway line from Croydon to Exeter, so I am well aware of the situation with the county lines and the little kids going down to Exeter, and I have worked with the police there in trying to reduce that vulnerability. It is also a real pleasure to speak in the debate, although my speech will be brief.

    Let me start by saying how strongly I support the Bill. We have debated it at length, and, although it does not go as far as anyone of us would like, it is a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his work. I also congratulate—on our side of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and the Select Committee, on the work that they have done.

    I want to paint a picture of what is happening in Croydon. I have been told that it has more supported exempt accommodation than any other area. That may not be the case, given that Birmingham seems to have so much of it, but we certainly have very high levels of such accommodation. We also have the second highest number of looked-after young people in the country, and almost the highest, if not the highest, number of unaccompanied asylum seekers. Thousands of people are moved to our borough from other London boroughs because our accommodation is cheaper. Myriad problems are associated with that, but at the heart of them all is supported exempt accommodation, which is driving up the business model for the rogue landlords and fuelling a push towards Croydon from other parts of London, because more money can be made from its cheaper accommodation.

    Let me briefly describe a few incidents that have occurred. Some of them involve supported exempt accommodation, while others involve other forms of vulnerable accommodation. In one road there were two murders in six months. The first person who was murdered had been moved from another London borough into a flat in Croydon. People were subsequently drinking in the street in memory of him, as it were, and that behaviour was protracted and became antisocial. There was a fight, and a second young man was murdered. There is a case at the Old Bailey at the moment involving a young man from my constituency. I cannot talk about it in detail, but he too was murdered. The accused is the man who lived in the next room, in supported accommodation. There was another person who the police thought for several days had been murdered because of the horrific nature of the way in which he had committed suicide; he was another vulnerable young man in supported accommodation. In cases such as these, which are beyond horrific, vulnerable people have been placed in accommodation where, for one reason or another, they have not received the support that they needed.

    An increasing number of streets in Croydon in areas that are not historically known for having such problems are having difficulties related to antisocial behaviour because of the large number of vulnerable people being placed in several properties in one street and not receiving the support they need. Supported exempt accommodation is wrapped up with permitted development, which is another huge problem in Croydon. Additionally, very large office buildings are being converted into flats which are not of good quality and are often let to people on a short-term basis.

    One of the issues highlighted by the hon. Member for Harrow East was the inadequate sharing of data and information. The local authority is clearly not informed about many of the people who are placed in Croydon, so the data is not there; where there are vulnerable people, the authority does not know about them. The most extreme case of that concerned a young man from another part of London who was placed in accommodation for looked-after people in the borough. He had a problem with another person, owing to gang rivalries, who was also placed in Croydon. The two bumped into each other by chance, and one murdered the other. It is enormously damaging to our communities, and to families and individuals, when data is not shared and people do not know where vulnerable people are. I have submitted a freedom of information request to all London boroughs asking them how many families they have in Croydon in any form of accommodation, whether temporary, looked-after or supported, and whether those people have addictions, mental health problems—or whatever it is. The data is coming back, and I will analyse it, but it refers to thousands and thousands of people, more in some boroughs than others. It is a real problem.

    As I said earlier, supported exempt accommodation is at the heart of this issue. When I went to the local jobcentre, I was told that it was also at the heart of the problems with trying to get young people into work: they cannot go into work, because the model does not work and they are encouraged not to work. Not only do we have very vulnerable people in what is often very inadequate and unsupported accommodation, but they are not getting the opportunities to improve their lives—to go out and get work—that we all want them to have.

    I will leave it there: I just wanted to give a few examples of some of the more horrific cases in my constituency. It cannot be right that we have any kind of model whereby people can make money at the expense of the taxpayer by exploiting vulnerable young people. Older people are affected as well, but in my borough it seems a lot of young people are being exploited. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East on his Bill, and all those who have been fighting for such legislation for so long. I give them my full support.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    I rise on behalf of my constituents to offer our condolences to the family of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth and to offer our loyalty to the new King. Queen Elizabeth II, who reigned for 70 years, is the only sovereign most of us have ever known. She was our constant in a changing world, our cornerstone at times of crisis, and our comfort when in sorrow. My nanna was a big fan. My mum, who is 70 this year, remembers as a child being read books about the young princesses and looking at photos of them all the time. I think the war years made that generation feel particularly close to the young Queen.

    The Queen was a friend to Croydon and visited many times in her reign. I remember precisely how exciting it was as a Brownie lining up with my flag to welcome her when she opened the Queen’s Gardens in the middle of my constituency—few things in my suburban childhood topped a visit from the Queen.

    Of course, it is not just Croydon and this country who are mourning. The world is in sorrow. The front page of The New York Times this morning simply says, “Queen and Spirit of Britain”. Many of us find it hard to imagine Britain without her. It feels bleak, but then I think, what would she do? What did she do when her own father, King George VI, died? I know that she would stand tall, face the day, pray to her God and do the best job that she could—and as the King said this evening, she would fearlessly embrace progress. That is the spirit we all keep alive.

    Heavy is the head that wears the crown—quite literally, as it turns out. The Queen was once heard to say that wearing a crown was like wearing a 10-lb salmon on her head, but she bore the weight well. Her service, her humility and her constancy are what we can all strive to achieve.

    The Queen’s death comes at a time of real challenge for our country. If ever we needed to be more like her, it is now. Let one of her legacies be that we will all try to be a little more like her—service, steady progress, humility, constancy and some fun along the way. None of us will see another Queen in our lifetime, so we say “Thank you” to Her late Majesty, and God save the King.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Metropolitan Police Service

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Metropolitan Police Service

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 29 June 2022.

    May I add my condolences to the family of Zara Aleena after her horrific murder?

    I am deeply disappointed with the Minister, who shared with us a statement that included none of the political attacks on the Mayor of London that we have just heard. The statement that we were sent was much shorter, and it contained not a single political attack on the Mayor of London. That is very bad form, as I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is not how things should be done.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I interrupt the hon. Lady to say that this is unusual. I also have a slightly different statement. It is expected that the Opposition have the statement that is actually given. I say this as a reminder for future reference.

    Sarah Jones

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Many of us will have heard this morning and last night the dignified and gracious interviews with Mina Smallman following the announcement that Her Majesty’s inspectorate is moving the Metropolitan police into what is called an “engage” phase. The way that the disappearance and then the deaths of Mina’s daughters were investigated, and the fact that altered images of their bodies were shared widely by some officers, have come to epitomise the problems within the Met that we, the Mayor of London and London residents have been so concerned about for some time.

    We know that tens of thousands of people work in the Met and, of course, we know that so many have that sense of public duty that reflects the incredibly important job that they do. They have been let down by poor leadership, lack of resources and an acceptance of poor behaviour. It is for them, as well as for victims and the wider public, that we seek to drive forward improvements.

    The announcement yesterday comes after a long list of serious conduct failures from the Metropolitan police: the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met officer, the conduct of officers following the murder of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, the strip-searching of children such as Child Q, the conduct unveiled in the report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct into the Charing Cross police station and the

    “seemingly incomprehensible failures to recognise and treat appropriately a series of suspicious deaths in the Stephen Port case”.

    The list of failings from the inspectorate makes for grim reading and goes way beyond those more high-profile cases: it includes performance falling far short of national standards, a barely adequate standard of crime recording and the quality of basic supervision to officers. All that has undermined public trust, and we all have a role to play in building that trust back up. As the Mayor of London has said, a first and crucial step for the new commissioner will be to start rebuilding trust and credibility in our communities.

    The Minister’s announcement about what needs to be done is incredibly weak. He talks about support for victims, but where is the victims’ law that the Government have been promising for years? We know there is a massive increase across the country in the number of cases collapsing because victims drop out—on his watch. He talks about reform to comprehensively address the strip searches on children, but he has totally failed to bring forward the new guidance on strip searches that we have been calling for for months. He talks about reforming culture, but he only refers to two long-term inquiries that may not provide answers, even though we know that action is needed now.

    The Minister is right that the system for holding forces to account has worked in this case, but we need change to follow. We need a national overhaul of police training and standards. There is much to be done on leadership. We need a new vetting system. We need to overhaul misconduct cases, with time limits on cases. We need new rules on social media use. We need robust structures for internal reporting to be made and taken seriously, and we need new expected standards on support for victims, investigation of crimes, and internal culture and management. That is for the Home Office to lead.

    The Met cut its police constable to sergeant supervision ratio after the Conservatives cut policing, and after the Olympics—when the Minister was deputy mayor—it was cut more than any other force. A police sergeant said this morning:

    “I do not have a single officer that I supervise that has over 3 years’ service, so not a single officer that policed pre Covid.”

    Does the Minister now accept that, no matter how much he promises in terms of new, young and inexperienced officers right now, the Met and forces across the country are still suffering from the loss of 20,000 experienced officers that his Government cut?

    Policing should be an example to the rest of society, and supporting our police means holding officers and forces to the highest possible standards. The concerns today are about the Met, but we know there are problems in other forces, too. Can the Minister confirm how many other forces are in this “engage” phase, and which forces they are? Can he outline what the steps the Home Office is taking now to drive up standards in the police across the country?

    The British style of policing depends on public trust. The public deserve a police service that they not only trust, but can be proud of. Victims need an efficient and effective force to get them justice. Our officers deserve to work in a climate without bullying, toxic cultures. We need to see urgent reforms. The Government can no longer leave our police facing a perfect storm of challenges and fail to lead that change.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on Passport Regulations

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on Passport Regulations

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has already pointed out, at this point in time across the country there are thousands of people who believe that the passport system needs to change, but it is fair to say that the tweaks we are debating today would not be top of their list.

    The shadow Home Office team has been inundated with examples of Government failure—primarily the failure to predict and adequately prepare for the surge in demand for passport renewal after the covid travel restrictions were lifted. That is despite being warned of the problems as far back as November in this House by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We have heard of family holidays being cancelled because passports did not arrive on time, a seriously sick child unable to take a long-awaited trip of a lifetime, of work missed, honeymoons threatened, and the huge costs incurred from cancellations, rebooking, and paying for the fast-track service and multiple applications.

    The worst is not over. Leaked Passport Office documents reported by The Times at the weekend revealed that the 500,000 application backlog is growing. How will the existing regulations be made fit for purpose when the existing system is said by staff not to be fit for purpose?

    Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

    I agree that we are all hearing from constituents who are waiting for passports. People who did not renew their passports during covid now suddenly want to use them. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that, despite the current huge demand for passports, for security reasons all relevant checks must be made on everyone applying for a UK passport, and those should never, ever be passed by because of the huge demand that the services face at the moment?

    Sarah Jones

    The hon. Gentleman is right. All MPs have had cases of people desperately trying to get their passports on time, and of course he is right that security is important. We must make sure we do these things correctly. Our argument is that we should have seen the problem coming and done a lot more about it.

    The article in The Times reported that the existing pressures are only going to get “heavier” and that people are being given “poor, misleading advice” by the advice line provider. Yet despite these well-documented problems, the Minister in the other place, Baroness Williams, told my colleague, Lord Coaker, that the Department

    “did prepare extensively for elevated demand with no restrictions upon international travel, and those preparations have ensured that passport applications can be processed in higher numbers than ever before.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    That is the argument the Minister made, but it is not good enough. I have to say to him that that will be news to many of those who have been waiting. Given the scale of the problem, we are unconvinced that an SI that will slow down the fast track process by one day is a proportionate response to those realities.

    Baroness Williams told the other place that the Department estimates that it will receive a total of 9.5 million applications in 2022. She insisted that the Department was

    “on target to deliver those”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    So did this Minister. Can he explain to the House how he can be so confident, given the backlog? What urgent work are the Government and the Home Office doing ahead of the summer to prevent millions of families from being put through chaos before their summer holidays?

    Despite our sense that this SI tinkers around the edges of what is a much more serious systemic problem, we largely do not object to the measures in it. As I said, the SI will slow down the fast-track process by one day. How many applications are currently missing the seven-day deadline? Slowing down the fast track is an admission of failure. Why do Ministers not believe that the system can get back on track, and meet existing targets, in the long term? We have no concerns about the purely technical changes that set out passport fees more simply and we believe that it is fair to look at keeping the booking fee where a person books a priority appointment but fails to turn up.

    The new schedule shows that a higher fee is added for children aged under 16 to use priority services—£73 for the fast track and £102 for the premium service—than for adults, who pay £66.50 for the fast track and £101.50 for the premium service. Why is there that difference between children and adults?

    I have a question on the detail. The Minister touched on this, but perhaps he can clarify it. My understanding is that if an appointment is missed—sometimes people make an innocent mistake—this measure provides not only for the booking fee and priority fee to be non-refundable, but for the standard application fee to be kept. Does that mean that if a person misses their appointment, they will not only lose the fees for that appointment but lose the application altogether? Will they then have to find the money for the standard fee to start the whole process again? If the failure is the system’s rather than the applicant’s, what happens to the person’s priority fees if the system fails to deliver their passport within the appropriate deadline? And what about where a person misses an appointment with good reason, which may happen? The Minister talked about a refund on compassionate grounds, such as medical or family emergencies. Can we have more information on that policy? Will it be a discretionary decision that individuals in the Passport Office make, or will there be a complete list of criteria? If so, could we have more detail? There is no information about that in the explanatory memorandum.

    Baroness Williams said in the other place that the Department has

    “employed 500 staff since last April, and there will be a further 700 this summer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    May I ask when those new staff will be in place? The word “summer” is quite vague, and often the Government count autumn as summer. We hope that that is not the case here; and obviously many families will need passports before the summer holidays begin.

    Finally, Baroness Williams insisted that the Department was on course to deliver the 9.5 million passports, but she was unable to say what the current backlog is. Could this Minister fill in that detail for the House now? I look forward to his response.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow all the contributions that have been made today.

    As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as many of my hon. Friends have said, we were disappointed with this Queen’s Speech. It was a missed opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis, to tackle climate change and to attack the very real problems of crime. The long-awaited victims Bill has yet to make its way to the Chamber but, if the Government were serious about governing in the interests of the people, that Bill might have been at the top of their agenda. There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to turn around the collapse in prosecutions or the rise in crime, nothing to tackle violence against women and girls, and nothing to prevent neighbourhood crime.

    This is a Government with no guiding principle, searching for anything to show a sense of purpose where there is none. What are this Government for? What good have the last 12 years brought us? That is a question for another time, but the hotch-potch of Bills in this Queen’s Speech tells its own story.

    The Public Order Bill largely rehashes what we saw in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which—as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and others have pointed out—was rejected by the other place. Moreover, it arrives before the protest clauses in that Act have come into effect, which in itself seems slightly peculiar. Perhaps introducing the statutory instruments to put those clauses into law would have made more sense, but I am not sure that sense is a guiding principle of this Government.

    The problem that the Bill seeks to solve is the need to ensure that vital public infrastructure is not seriously disrupted to the detriment of the community and our national life, while also ensuring that the rights of free speech and public protest are protected. The Opposition believe that it manages to deliver neither of those things. A starting point must be to ask: what are the basics that the police need to equip them with the tools that they need to manage protests in the minority of cases that lead to lawlessness or violence? Let me tell the House about the basic pillars.

    Paul Bristow

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hon. Members

    No! Keep going.

    Sarah Jones

    I hear heckling. I will keep going for a minute. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to my pillars, and then see if he still wants to intervene.

    First, we need the police numbers to be able to deal with protests. The policy of the Conservative party, which was to cut more than 20,000 officers, thousands more police community support officers and thousands of police staff, did precisely the opposite. Specifically, there are not enough protester removal teams across the country, as the inspectorate pointed out in its report on policing protests. Why not do something about that? Secondly—this too was highlighted in the report—the police across the board need effective training in the law and in policing protests so that they can use existing legislative processes. The inspectorate said:

    “Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing.”

    According to the Police Foundation, over the seven years up to 2017-18, 33 forces reduced their budgeted spending on training in real terms by a greater percentage than their overall reduction in spending. Forty per cent. of police officers say that they did not receive the necessary training to do their job. Why not do something about that?

    Thirdly, we need to give the specialist teams the tools that they need to be effective at prevention and de-escalation. I recently visited the brilliant mounted police branch team in the Met. The mounted police are an important part of the policing of protests and other events such as football matches, but they too have been cut across the country, not just in the Met. Why not do something about that?

    Finally, when the police do press charges, they want to be sure that those charges will be followed through. There is no deterrent in a system that never sees cases go to court, but we are told by the police and by the inspectorate that the Crown Prosecution Service often has to drop cases because of huge court delays. Why not do something about that?

    The Government have taken away the tools that the police need to manage protest. How can they claim to take this issue seriously?

    Paul Bristow

    I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member, and she is making an interesting speech, but would she agree with some of her own Back Benchers on this? For example, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would marginalise Roma and Traveller communities out of existence, and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said that this Public Order Bill was a threat to religious gatherings. Does the hon. Member agree with those two points?

    Sarah Jones

    The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which we on this side of the House opposed, in part because of its punitive measures against the Traveller community—so absolutely, yes.

    We think that this Bill does not strike the right balance on protests and that it is not the most effective way to stop significant disruption of our national infrastructure. The right to protest is a fundamental right and a hard-won democratic freedom that we are deeply proud of. We will always defend the right to speak, to protest and to gather, but there is a careful balance to be struck between those rights of protest and the rights of others to go about their daily lives. Much of the debate today has been about that balance.

    We heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) about the disruption caused in her constituency. We heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about attending the miners’ strike. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the expansion of Heathrow and the desperate plight of people in his constituency. We heard from the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) about how we can ensure that protest is not used as a cover for criminal activity. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about the importance of protests in the context of rights for people with disabilities. This is a genuine debate, and it is the right one to have. We know that the Prime Minister values the right to protest, as he said that he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway at Heathrow airport.

    But some protests tip the balance in the wrong direction. Protest is not an unqualified right. Campaigners who block people from reaching relatives in hospital, marches that close down entire towns and oil protests that prevent people from crucial travel raise a valid concern, which is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill. Our approach, rather than seeking to restrict people’s rights beyond the point of reasonableness, is to establish a swifter process for seeking an injunction to prevent disruption to vital national infrastructure. That would be a more effective prevention tool and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said earlier, it would have the advantage of giving judicial oversight, which would safeguard rights.

    If protesters are causing a huge amount of disruption to the supply of essential goods and services such as oil or medical supplies, an injunction is more likely to prevent further disruption than more offences to criminalise the conduct after the event. Injunctions are more straightforward for the police. They have more safeguards, as they are court-granted, and they are future-proofed for when protesters change tactics. We would include emergency health services in vital national infrastructure, and we would also ensure proper training, guidance and monitoring on the response to disruptive protests, in line with the inspectorate’s recommendations, so that we could use the existing legislation effectively.

    Lee Anderson

    The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech and some good points. She talks passionately about protesters, and sometimes there is a case and sometimes there is not. Will she cast her mind back to the Black Lives Matter riots on Whitehall over a year ago, during lockdown when those gatherings were illegal? At least two of her own MPs were there, encouraging those yobbos who were burning flags and attacking the police. Does she agree that that behaviour by her own MPs was wrong?

    Sarah Jones

    I am not sure that today is the right day to be talking about people who have broken lockdown rules. Perhaps the hon. Member has not seen some of the pictures that the rest of us have been looking at this afternoon.

    We believe that some of the provisions in this Bill effectively replicate laws already in place that the police can and already do use. There is already an offence of wilfully obstructing the highway. There is already an offence of criminal damage or conspiracy to cause criminal damage. There is already an offence of aggravated trespass. There is already an offence of public nuisance. More than 20 people were arrested for criminal damage and aggravated trespass at Just Stop Oil protests in Surrey. Injunctions were granted at Kingsbury oil terminal following more than 100 arrests, and there were arrests for breaching those injunctions, which are punishable by up to two years in prison—nine people were charged. When Extinction Rebellion dumped tonnes of fertiliser outside newspaper offices, five people were arrested. Earlier this year, six Extinction Rebellion activists were charged with criminal damage in Cambridge. In February this year, five Insulate Britain campaigners were jailed for breaching their injunctions. In November, we saw nine Insulate Britain activists jailed for breaching injunctions to prevent road blockades.

    Removing people who are locking on can take a long time and require specialist teams, but a new offence of locking on will not make the process of removing protesters any faster. The Government should look at the HMICFRS report and focus on improving training and guidance, and they should look to injunctions.

    I cannot but attack the issue of stop and search and SDPOs. This Bill gives the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, such as shoppers passing a protest against a library closure. The Home Secretary said the inspectorate supports these new powers, but the inspectorate’s comments were very qualified and talked of, for example, the powers’ potential “chilling effect”.

    Many of my hon. and right hon. Friends talked of the serious problem of disproportionality, as did the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, and talked of how these powers were initially rejected by the Home Office because of their impact. Members who have spent many years campaigning on these issues, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), pointed to the risk of these deeply concerning provisions increasing disproportionality, bringing peaceful protesters unnecessarily into the criminal justice system and undermining public trust in the police who are trying to do their job.

    Our national infrastructure needs protecting. We hear the anger, irritation and upset when critical appointments are missed, when children cannot get to school and when laws are broken. As our reasoned amendment makes clear, we would support some amended aspects of the Bill, but we cannot accept the Bill as it currently stands. The proposals on suspicion-less stop and search, and applying similar orders to protesters as we do to terrorists and violent criminals, are unhelpful and will not work. The police already have an array of powers to deal with such protests, and injunctions would be a better tool to use. We will not and cannot stand by as the Government try to ram through yet another unthought-through Bill in search of a purpose.

    I urge all reasonable Members to support Labour’s reasoned amendment, and I urge the Government to focus instead on their woeful record on crime.